*5^ . PRINCETON, N. J. '^* Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agneiv Coil, on Baptism, No. ''^$f. LETTER T o A Baptist - Minister; CONTAINING, Some Stridures on his late Condu<5^ in the Baptizaiion of certain Adults at ^•'^'^''^ 'iVy^ WITH A particular Vindication of the Right O F I N F A N T - B A P T I S M; 5„ r^-xfv. ""^ » «c I WILL BE A GOD UNTO THEE, AND TO THY SEED Um AFTER THBE )» Gen, xvii. 7. Abraham believ'd the promis'd grace. And gave his fons to God j But water SEALS the bleffings now, Which once were seal'd with blood. Thus later faints, eternal King, Thine ancient truth embrace; To thee their infant-offspring brings And humbly claim the grace. Dr, iVattr: Shrewsbury: Printed for the Author* M, DCC, LXXYI. M ca ,>**^^ /' %'^ _ ^: % ^ A L E T T E iC- &c. "r».,lU S IR, , PERMIT me to introduce this letter with that well - authenticated obfervation of Solomon, *' Give inftru(5lion (or admonition) to a wife " man, and he will be yet wifer." Prov. ix. 9. The infpired proverbialifi fuppofes, that even a wife man may err ; thro' ignorance, prejudice of education, or inadvertence, — that a confciouf- nefs oihxs fallibility will make him, however, felf- diffident, teachable and cautious, — that humility, which is an elTentlal charaderiftic of heavenly wifdom, will render him acceffible even to Iharp reproof, as well as mild admonition — and that falutary inftrudion, fuggefted from any quarter, will be received with thankfulnefs and cordiality, and make even the wife man himf^lf, both wifer and better, I flatter myfelf, that this brief comment on the words of Solomon will meet with your hearty ap- probationj nor am I without hopes, that you -will juftify me in making it the introdu(?tion to this letter J at the fame time, that the fuccefs intimated in the facred text, induces me almoft to conclude, that you will candidly and difpaffionately weigh A z the ( 4 ) Ae friendly hints I propofe laying before you, and reap from them fome fmall advantage. I affure you. Sir, it is far frofti my delign in thus citing you to the bar of the public, to ad the part of the four critic ^ who eagerly catches at every opportunity feverely to lalh the inaccuracies of an illiterate opponent ^ — of the fupercilious dilator, who iffues out his dogmas with peremp- torinefs, and fufpends all his arguments on the Hrength of his own pompous ipfe dixit; — of the higk-church-man, who, with pontifical dignity, unchurches all that are not of his communion ; unchriftians all that have not been baptized at his font ; and makes minifterial ordination the abfo- lute monopoly of laivn-Jleeves ; — much lefs wou'd I in the fmalleft degree wilh to imitate the Con- dud of the furious zealot or contraded Je^ariji, who upon the flighteft difference in opinion, is ready to call for fire from heaven, or rather /rowi hs^U, to confume his adverfaries. No, God forbid! that my heart Ihou'd be influenced, or my pen guided, by fuch a malevolent, cynical, didatorial, bigoted fpirit ! I hope I have not/b learned Chrift. Probably if it had fallen to the lot of fome other perfon to animadvert on, what I mean only to treat in a way of expoflulatlon, you would have been accofled with the ironical fneer, the explicit reproof, the perfonal invedive, or cutting far-. cafm. But Non defenforibus ijiis 'J'm^us eget ■ » ... . ,- The ( 5 ) The prefent time needs not fuch weapons as tbefe J elpecially as they are fufficiently brandifh- ed by modern difputants with an impetuolity, that greatly mjures the caufe of religion, and re- flecfts no honor on the fpirit of the contending parties themfelves. Far be it from me then, to take up thofe weapons againft you. Sir, which have already turned the field of controverfy, into a campus martius, or a polemic aceldatna -, where {Tpmtua.\ gladiators with an unfortunate manoeuvre wound the very truth they contend for, and, by cutting and hacking one another, only afford amufement to the fly fpe6tators. Belides, as fuch weapons are carnal, they confequently make no part of the armor of a chriftian, whofe peculiar glory it is, to contend earnejily, but not bitterly, for the truth once delivered to the faints. Inftead therefore of rulliing on you with the fury of a heated antagonifi, I mean only to addrefs you with the calmnefs of a benevolent admonijlier, or the faithfulnefs of a dilinterefted/nVwi. And if in the courfe of my remarks I fhou'd give you an inadvertent wound, 1 wilh the inftrument that makes it, may be fo tempered with the oil of love, as that, you may hardly feel the edge, till with an imperceptible keennefs it has performed its work. And if any of the wounds, after they are made, (hovCd /mart at all, I hope Solomon's words will fufficiently explain fuch a circumftanee, and at the fame time fuggeft a motive for patience, ** Faithful are the wounds of a. friend," Perhaps (6 ) ■ Perhaps yourfelf, and others, may blame mc for doing that before the public, which might h^ve been tranfa61ed in private. Bat the obfer- vation drops all its weight, when I conlider, that the remedy wou'd not then be proportioned to the difeafe ; yea, that it wou'd be virtually no remedy at all. For j lince you a6t in a public chara(?i:er, and have frequent opportunities of difplaying that fpirit, which you lately did in S y, no- thing can (probably) countera6l it's influence, but a public reprehenfion. And I look upon fuch a circumftance, (though indeed in fome refpeds diffimilar,) as warranted by the fpirited conduct of faithful Paul, in his public reproof of a brother J^ojile. See Gal. ii. 14. I declare it goes to my heart ever to take up ipy pen againft any good man, efpecially, when he fuftains the important office of a preacher of the everlafting gofpel. But when good men a6l contrary to the genius of the gofpel they preach ; when they are carried away with the torrent of bigotry j when they lay fuch an undue flrefs on jiQJi-eJfentiah, as to aggrandize them into a part of oviX falvation; when they attack thofe who differ from them with fatire and acrimony ; when the fentiments and conduv51 of minifters of the eftab- lilhed church, are reprefented in fuch a ridiculous point of viev/. as to excite the laughter of an au- dience, which ought to he fokmnized with fubje6^s of a different nature -, when fuch conducf tends to ( 1 ) 16 widen tlie breach between churcli-mexi and dilTenters, and to augment the flame of party- prejudice, which burns too vehemently amongft us already; — 1 fay, when even good men betray fuch inftances of bigotted weaknefs, and are in- jftrumental in doing (I hope only i?iadvertent) injury to the caufe of Chrifi, it is the indifpenfable duty of fome to expoflulate with them on fuch in- confiftent behaviour; left the Ample fhou'd be beguiled, and the progrefs of the gofpel impeded. And however 1 may efteem you. Sir, and other jefpe<5table perfons in your conne6lion, as indeed I do with the greateft flncerity; yet I hope you will allow that the deareft and moft venerable names are to be comparatively forgotten, where truth is concerned. I delire thus to know no man after the flejh. The excellent apology of the Phi- lofopher is mine. Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, fed magis arnica Veritas. Without any farther apologetic preamble, I proceed explicitly to do that, for which I have ventured to take up my pen; and that is calmly to expoflulate with you on your late minifterial condud; and to bring your j'^/r/^, peculiar /f«^/- ments, and mode of preaching, to the touchftone of fcripture, reafon, candor, and common-fenfe — I have not concealed my name either thro' fear or fhame; but with a ftudious delign, that the con- tents of this pamphlet may be candidly perufed, and that the readers of it on all fides may not be Unduly ( « ) tinduly biaiTed for or againji the author^ a cii^* cumftance, which the bare infertion of a name is foraetimes too apt to occalion. L I When the intention of your making a Vifit to this town, was announced by fome of your friends in the Baptiji perfuafion, the expecflation of fome, and the curioiity of others, were greatly excited. As every good man, by whatever party or denomination he may be dirtinguilbed, is equal- ly dear to me in the common fellowlhip of the gofpel, I therefore fhared in the joy of your ex- pected arrival. Perhaps indeed the motives which excited the eagernefs and expectations of others^^ may have been different from mine. Some proba* bly long'd for your coming, only that they might be entertained with your lively mode of preach-* ing ; others earneftly looked out for your arrival^ that they might receive from your hands the be- nefit of immerfion ; while not a few perhaps only wilhed for the period, that they might glory in yourflejh — that you were a popular preacher j all which glorifying, by the bye, is vain. But I affure you, wy joy was perfe6lly free from all thofe felf-» interefted motives, I rejoiced that you weife com- ing to bear your teftimony to the truths of that gofpel, which alas ! has but few fincere and zealous advocates in the prefent day. I gloried in the thought of your being inftrumental in God's hands ( 9 ) hands in turning linners from the error of their ways. And, fo far from envying any little popu- larity you may have acquired by the peculiarity of vour addrefs, 1 on the contrary wilhed the whole town might attend your preaching, if fuch attendance wou'd be a mean of bringing them to the knowledge of the Son of God. And I went fo far, as, even, in thought, to anticipate your minifterial fuccefs in the reformation of fome poor Sa ns. Howfoever that may have turned out, I freely acknowledge. Sir, that my fanguine expectations refpe(?ling you, have exceedingly dropped j and that the principle of your procedure has not ap- peared to me in fo amiable a light as I cou'd have wilhed. I had entertained a conliderable idea of your catholicifm, moderation, buc. But, Eheu! quanta, de fpe decidi! How have I been amazed and dif- appointed ! lince I have been informed with what cenforious zeal you have inlifted on dipping ; and how very feverely you treated fuch as happen to differ from you on that mofl unimportant fubjeCt. 2 The great Apoflle of the Gentiles gloried that " Chrift fent him 720^ to baptize" (merely or principally) " but to preach the gofpel." Whereas (though I will not ^biolnitXy judge you on the fub- jeifl) it feems to have been the principal delign of Mr. M. in his vilit to 5" y, to baptize. But," Sir, if you really thought that none of the Mi- niflers in the eftablilhed Church, or among the Piffenters, adminifler the ordinance of Baptifm B in ( 10 ) In a fcriptural manner; furely you muft know that there is one of your oivn perfualion in town, whofe help might have very well fayed you your journey from L /; and who is as fully quali- fied for dippings and as fully flrenuous in urging its great importance^ as yourfelf. But he happens to be in favor with one party, and in unfortunate difgrace with the other ; and therefore his bap- tiliery is in difrepute ! 3 However, we will wave this point, and fup- pofe you came to fee your friends ; to viiit the church, as you are pleafed to call the Baptifls ; to preach the gofpel j and to dip, only en pajfant. Well, and what harm in this ? you will fay. None in the leafl:. All this you can do, without any controul, in this highly-favored land of civil and rehgious Hberty. You and every diilenter may exercife all the peculiarities of your refpe6live denominations, without any dread of legal mo- leftation. You are fafely fcreened from the ftorra of perfecution by the llielter of a gracious tole- ration-, againfi: the privileges of which, I wou'd not for the world level a fingle plea. But, while you lit comfortably under your peaceful vine, is it right to throw out wanton witticifms againft the hiild adminiftration, which tolerates its exiftence? Can't you baptize in yx)ur peculiar mode, with- out fneering at the eflablhhed Church v/hich differs from you ? Do you think it not fufficient to be tolerated to dijfent from the eftablilhment, yniels you have a toleration likewife to inveigh againft ( " ) againft her rites f Surely fuch condud Is unrea-* fonable, ungrateful, and highly unbecomii^g. 4 But you think yourfelf authorized to throw- out your cenfures againft the eftablilhed church, becaufe, it feems, you have difcovered feme de-. ficiencies in her public fervice. Hence I am in- formed, that in your fermon preparatory to the ceremony of dipping, you fuggefted the following addition to our Liturgy. " From falfe Joy, falfe " confidence, bic. Good Lord deliver us." The members of the ertablilhment are much obliged to you, Sir, for this propofed interpolation, But probably, the generality of them will concur with me in thinkmg it altogether unnecelfary, for the following reafons. (^ ) We cannot poihbly entertain fo high an opinion of Mr. M's abilities, as to fuppofe him qualified for making an im- provement in our Liturgy, when we conlider it as the produ6iion of men of the deepefl: learning and piety, whofe exemplary holinefs in life, and invincible fortitude in death, proved them to have been amply qualified for the high office of Re- formers, and to have been eminently worthy of the crown o^ Martyrs. (2) Our liturgy does not really need any addition. It is already full, and Includes every iingle article of moment, which a poor fmner can wifh to form in his addreiTes to the throne of grace. It is comprehenfive, without being prolixj explanatory, without being tedious; and conclfe, without being obfcure. It ftands in our fervice as a firm barrier againfl the incroach- B 2 ments ( 12 } ments of herefy ; as an excellent model for coti-^ gregational prayer; and as a prefervative againft the introdudion of men's private opinions into that part of divine worlhip, which ought cer- tainly to be the moft folemn, the moft pure, and the moR fcriptural of any other. How often have 1 blefled God for our judicious Liturgy, when I have been ear-witnefs to the irreverence, and vain repetition, wherewith extemporaneous effulions in prayer, too often abound ! And how has it grieved me to obferve the great influence of prejudice l ■which, fooner than be obligated to the eftablilTi- ment for a liturgical fervice, will fometimes palm upon a congregation abfolute nonfenfe, or per- haps fomething worfe. (3) The petition pro- pofed, is virtually contained in the following fuf- frages. " From pride, vain-glory, and hypocrify. " — from all the deceits of the world, the flelh, *' and the devil, good Lord deliver us!" I dare fay, I need not inform you. Sir, that falfe joy, falfe confidence, falfe hope, and falfe faith too,- are the infeparable concomitants of pride, vain- glory, and hypocrify -, and as the devil can fo far transform himfelf into an angel of light, as to re- commend, and fuccefsfully infpire, all thefe four dreadful falftties into the hearts of linners, from^ ■which our Church prays to be delivered-, 1 hope you are now convinced that your lately-propofed reformation in our liturgy, is fuperfluous, re- dundant and unneceffary, 5 I was ( 13 ) 5 I was for fome time at a lofs to conceive? what connexion Cou'd polfibly fubfill: between your ceremony of dippi?igy and the introdudion of your additional petition into our Liturgy. But my conjectural difficulties foon vanlllied, upon being informed, that in your fermon prepa- ratory to plunging the adults, you expatiated on the interview between Philip and the Eunuch, mentioned in Jt^s viVi. 26 — 40. One circamflance which you feem efpecially to have dwelt upon, was that of the happy Ethiopian '• going on his way *' rejoicing." This, I fuppofe, led you to con- fider the nature of true and falfe joy ; and from thence you were inclined probably to propofe an amendment in our Liturgy. But furely, Sir, you cannot think that the Eunuch's joy was the truer becaufe he was baptized; or that it was founded upon that circumflance. I believe his joy was antecede?it to his being baptized, and that it had an entire reference to that crucified yefus whom Paul preached, and in whom he believed. Had the Fjinuch rejoiced merely becaufe his body was walhed in water, fuch rejoicing wou'd have cha- ra6lerlzed him, as belonging to the concijion-, and not to that true circumcijion, whofe " rejoicing is *' in Chrifi: jefus, and who put no confidence in ** the flefh." Phil. iii. 2. For, whoever makes any thing, either in whole or in part, the ground of his rejoicing before God, fave the atonement and obedience of Chriji, does fo far reji in a creature-work, and derogate from the Redeem- er's glory. And yet, if your whole exhortation did ( H ) ctid not wear fome fuch legal afpe6^, I cannot conceive wherefore you animadverted on the fap- pofed defeclivenefs of our Liturgy ; when fach animadverlion tended to infinuaie, that the dif-^ penfers of Infant-Baptifm, and the peribns fo bap- tized, muil; be under the influence of a faljejoy* Although I am wiUing to hope, that, whatever you may have dropped on this fubject, arofe, more from inaccuracy of expreffion, than real error of fentiment; yet, left your fpirit Ihou'd have been particularly legalized upon a favorite occafion, permit me to ftate the following cafe. — Suppofe any of the candidates for immeriion (for it feems they were dreffed in ivhikj Ihou'd turn out to have been hypocrites,- or formal profeiTors; that they were utterly unacquainted with the found faith of the converted Eunuch ; and that they went to the bath, with the fame ftupid fpirit, in which numbers approach iht Jacramsnt -, wou'd their " watery grave, *" ex opere operato bury their lins, or make them partakers of the true laver of regeneration? If they rejoiced ; wou'd their joy be that with which aftranger inter meddkth not? Wou'd not it be joy in holy water, rather than in the Holy Ghoji? Wou'd it not be a joy in dipping, and not in believing ? And, confequently, wou'd it not be the delulive joy of the hypocrite, or the flaihy joy of the ftony-ground hearer ? And if this may have been the cafe with fome, as it certainly may; was your exhortation calculated to roufe them from their dream ? Rather, by making an ill- timed digreffion to the fuppofed dcfei5fs of the eftablilhed * So the Baptills fometimes call the baptifraal water. / ( 15 ) eftabllflied Liturgy, and to thofe minlfters, wlio are advocates for Infant-Baptifm, had it not a tendency to infpire your candidates with an im- proper contempt of both; to putF them up with felf-conceit ; and to make them (Pharifee-like) *' thank God, that they were not like other" un- dipped "men?" 6 In the courfe of your remarks on baptizing by afpcrjicn or fpri/iklifig, feveral of your hearers thought you more amuling than judicious. Whole vollies of low witlicifms were levelled, it feem.s, at the minifters in the eftablifliment and among the difienters, who do not choofe to lay fuch a itrcfs on dipping, as you do. But perhaps all thefe wit- ticifms put together (if I may judge of the %vhole by a. part) did not carry with them the cogency of one folid obfervation; and I am perfuaded the whole of fuch rifible ord'nance wou'd be mere Irutum fubnen, harmlefs artillery, when oppofed to a fingle fcrlptural argument. However, let us try the ftrength of a few of them. In order that you might ridicule thofe who do not difpenfe baptifm by immerfion, you wilt ly obferved, " that they only baptize the ends of " their fingers." This obfervation favors more of vulgarity than folid ity. The error contained in it, is founded on a mere begging the queftion. You take for granted, that baptifm always ligni- fies dipping; or that the idea of the one is always infeparably connected with that of the other. But a proper attention to the analogy of fcripture, and ( i6 ) and a moderate acquaintance with the genius of the greek language wou'd convince you of your miflake. (i) By comparing a few paiTages of fcripture together, it will appear, that the Holy Ghoji uies the terms baptizing, fprinkling, pouring cut, &c. as fynonymous. Thus when the prophet fays, " He Ihall sprinkle many nations," Ifa. Hi. 15. the fon of Zacharias faith, " He fhall *' BAPTIZE you with the Holy Ghoft and with " fire." M2^. iii. Ti. The influence of the Spirit is frequently reprefented under the fymbol of the element ufed in baptifm. Hence that glo- rious promife, *' Then will I sprinkle clean " water upon you, and ye Ihall be clean, &c.'* Ezek. xxxvi. 25. And hence the correfpondent promife under the New Teitament, " He that " believeth and is baptized Ihall be faved." Jldark xvi. i6. Again, the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft is promifed in that remarkable prophecy of yoel in the following terms. " It lliall come to *' pafs afterwards that I will pour out my " Spirit upon all flelli." This very promife, which was fo eminently fulfilled upon the day of .Tentecofi, the Apoftle Teter quoted in the courfe of his fermon recorded in A6fs li. and moreover lifes the very word of the prophet, faying, " He *' hdiXh Jhed forth (the Greek word is eIs^ee poured *' out) this, which ye now fee and hear." And yet l\\is Jhedding forth or pouring out is called bap- tizing. Yea I can prove that falling upon and Ifaptizing are ufed fynonymoufly in fcripture. In . ( i? ) in Peter's famous conteft at Jeri(falem with tllS legal advocates for circumcifion he recites the par- ticulars of his lifion, the removal of his jevvilH prejudices, and the manner in which the Gejitiles were confirmed in the ble^nngs of the covenant. " As 1 began to fpeak" fays the Apoflle, *' the " Holy Ghoft FELL ON ewsttecte them, as onus, *^ &Ct Then remembered I the word of the ** Lord, how that he faid, ye Ihall be bap- *' TizED with the Holy Ghoft." A6isiu 15, 16, From all thefe correfpondent paffages, it muft appear to every unprejudiced perfon, that the gift of the Spirit of God is illuftrated by the terms fprinkling, pouring cut, &c. that thefe terms are equivalent to baptizing; and that as the baptifmal water is an emblem of the Spirit of Chriji, I am fully perfuaded, when the facramentary element is t\i\\tv poured ox Jprinkkd upon an infant in the name of the tri-une GOD, it is as erledu- ally baptized, as if it were plunged twenty fathom under water. (2) The various ufe of the Greek word CaTTTi^w might convince you, that the idea of dipping is not ejfentially connected with it. I will therefore quote a few paflages, where it has a dif- ferent acceptation. For, (as the judicious Leigfi obferves in his Critica Jacra) " though the word ** baptize be derived from Qo^m-ru mergo ot tingo, to " dip oir plunge into water, yet it is taken more " largely for any kind of wajliing, rinfing, or *' cleanjing, even where there is no dipping at all," at leafl no plunging of the whole body under wa^ C ter. ( i8 ) leY. — The Evangelift Informs us that the Phafi- fees, " except they waJJi {Ca.7rTi:^mla.t baptize them-- ** felves) eat not." Here was in this cuftom no immerging of the whole body j becaufe to do this, every time they came from market, wou'd have been extremely inconvenient, and in many cafes impradicable : belides the Apoftle fays that they walhed their hands. Yea that they held the " wafh- " ing {Sxvliay.a^ baptlfms) of cups, and pots, brazen veffels, and of {kMvi^v couches) tables. Ad^ark vii. 4. If any will contend that the Pharifees put their cups and pots under water, in order to clean them, yet furely it wou'd be abfurd to fuppofe that they immerged their couches too. Probably thefe were Jprinkled ; and yet the mode of cleanling them is called baptifm. A clear proof that the greek word has the different acceptation I contend for; that a perfon may be faid to be baptized, when only a part of his body is cleanfed with water; and that a manner of cleanling is in fcrlpture called a baptifm, even where there is no dipping at all. — Our Saviour faith, " I have a baptifm to be *' baptized with, &c." Jjike xii. 50. The baptifm alluded to, was that of his blood. But, wou'd it not be extremely abfurd to fay that Chriji was dipped in his blood ? Rather, as we are informed that in his agony, great drops were forced from the Redeemer's tortured pores, and fell in gru- mous clots to the ground ; does not fuch a bloody baptifm naturally fuggeft the idea of fprinkling ? Efpecially lince the Redeemer himfelf, upon his great ( 19 ) great work of treading the wlne-prefs, and vam- quilliing his enemies, is introduced by the pro- phet, as faying, " Their blood fhall be s p k i n- *' KLED upon my garments." Ifa. Ixiii. 3. — yohn prophefied of Chrifi, faying, " He ihall baptize ** you with the Holy Ghoft." Luke iii. 16. Is the leaft idea of dipping conneded with this promife ?' or with It's, fulfilment f when it is faid, that the Spi- rit of God in the form of fiery tongues fat upon the Apoftles. A6fs ii. 3. Yet this fitting upon is called a bting baptized, which furely is as remote from the idea oi dipping, as from that oi flying. — Again, the Apoftle fays that " the fathers were *' baptized in the cloud and in t\itfea.'' i. Cor. x. 2. They " were under the cloud," that Is, the cloud went over them like a canopy or umbrella, but without touching. So that if they were baptized in it, this muft be attributed' to the drops which fell from it, and fprinkled them. They *' paiTed " thro' the fea," which baptized them in the fame manner. As the watery element flood like a wall upon the right hand and upon the left, detached particles driven by the wind lightly fprinkled the marching tribes. So that, while the Ifraelites were haptizedhy fpr inkling, Pharaoh's hoft, which pur- fiied them, were baptized by immerjion' with, a ven- geance ; for the fea, hitherto parted for Ifrael's fafe conveyance, fell in upon the purfuers, fo that they funk, (or, if you pleafe, were dipped) like lead in the mighty waters. — The Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays, that the " firft C 2 *' covenant" ( 20 ) ^' covenant" or difpenfation of Mofes " had di- a c^,^^^ ■ivajhi?igs,'' d%a?o5o,j ea7r7.?-//,o(? different baptifms, Heb. ix. lo. Let any perfon but attentively read the account of thefe ablutions, waihings, or bap- tijms, under the law, and he will find that they were frequently executed hy Jpr inkling. The cafe of the kper is remarkable. " Then the prieft *' Ihall SPRINKLE upon him that is to be ** cleanfed," &c. Lev. xiv. 7. And the Apoftle afcribes a legal purification of the unclean to the Jprinkling of the blood of bulls and goats, and to the alhesofan heifer. Heb. ix. 13, From hence it is manifeft that the Holy Ghoft in his word, call? /prinkii?igs, baptifms, and vice verfa ; and that, to attribute the idea of dipping to the word baptize, is, to mifinterpret the oracles of God, — tp fet fcrip- ture againft itfelf— to be wife above that which is; written — and groflly to overlook the real import of the original, merely for eftabhfhing a favorite but unimportant ceremony. 7 But perhaps, notwithftanding the various acceptations pf the word baptifm, you ftill con-; elude, that all who were admitted to that ordi- nance, were abfolutely dipped. And you think that the inftances recorded in the New Teftament, prove the point. But, although I am not reluc^ tant in acknowledging, that baptifm may have been/w7Zf//;7?fiadminiftered by immerjion; yet, that jthis was not always the cafe, there is, I think, pvident intimation. And if you had confidered ^his {)pint more maturely, I am certain you wou'cf not ( 21 ) not have delivered yourfelf fo peremptorily upon the fubjeeen,hci^t\zed hy immerji 071. Indeed the contrary h fappofable. For, as the Eunuch cou'd not have been prepared for an unexpected plunge lander water j it is unnatural to fuppofe that Phi- lip fent him away dripping wet, as he had a jour- ney { 23 ) ney to purfue ; efpecially as fuch a circumfiance might infpire the Eunuch with an unfavorable idea of chriftianity, juii at his firft fetting out, As to the manner in which the jailor was baptized, 1 think it feems more than probable, itcou'd not have been by dipp'mg; lince the place (a dungeon,) the time (midnight,) and other con- comitant circumftances, muft have rendered im- merfion incommodious and even impoflible ; unlefs you adopt an abfurd and improbable fuppolitioii that the jailor was provided with a haptiftcry in his houfe. (4) However even fuppoling that in hot coun- tries and upon particular occalions, baptifm was adminiftered by immerfion; yet this is no proof that this was always the cafe; for even Scripture itfelf abundantly intimates the contrary, and fo does the ufage of the Church for many centuries back, as well as that of the moft pure and flou- rilhing protettant Churches in the prefent day. In certain circumftances and upon fome parti- cular occalions, dipping wou'd be not only im- pra6licable, but likewife attended with conlide- rahle danger. — For inftance. Suppofe, Sir, that you were called to vilit the fick-bed of an aban- doned infidel, a carnal Jew, or a deluded Quaker; that any one of thefe three avowed enemies to the chriftian facraments was happily convinced of his errors through your inftrumentalityj and that upon the removal of his prejudices againft thegof- pel of the bleffed God, he requelled you to admit him ( 24 ) lilm to the New Teftament feal of the eovGh^nii Wou'd you, as a difpenfer ofbaptifm, infift, that the party, laboring under an acute diforder, rack- ed with pain, and perhaps juft launching into eternity, ihou'd be taken out of bed, and plunged head-over-ears in a bath? Or in fuch circum- Hances, wou'd not humanity^ fcripture, and un- avoidable necejjity fo far overcome your ceremonial prejudices, as to fuggeft the propriety of admi- niftering the baptifmal water by fprinkUjig, or fouriTig f And as fuch a circumftance may often occur, in your vifits to fick people ; muft you not, either, omit altogether what you fay is " ef- " fential to the obedience of faith?" (which upon your principle muft be an ejfmtial omijjion,) or elfe do that, which might accelerate their depar- ture out of the world? or be driven to the humane neceffity of fprinkling {ome of your dying converts? ■ Or, fuppofe that a woman, far advanced in her pregnancy, Ihou'd happen to be one of your' candidates ; wou'd not tendernefs for the peculiar circumftances of the mother and the unborn infant, (not to fay decency,) fuggeft the poftponing an un- important ceremony, which might turn out " a ** watery grave'' with a witnefs, to both parties ? efpecially if the immerjion fhou'd take place in the rigorous feafon of winter ? Wou'd not therefore fprinkling, in this cafe, be more proper, and every whit as efficacious ? " O but we might do it in *' faith." Nay, you ihou'd rather have fald, *' in " prejumptlonj' for I believe faith has nothing to do .( :^S ). do with the matter. Ido^tvtr \i immejfion \i\ fuch dangerous circumftances be done In faith ; . why might it not be delayed m faith ? I ani cer- tain, that, even in cafe of death, fuch a procraftl- nation wou'd not in the leaft affea the eternaf welfare of either mother or child ; fince it is pro- mifed, " She fliall hefaved in child-bearing (not , *' if Ihe is dipped) but if they continue mfaitk *' and love, and hollnefs with fobrlety:' uTim. ii. 15. Confiderlng then that the nature of a climate, the feafon of the year, the peculiar fituation of fick perfons, and of pregnant women, and va- rious other circumftances might concur to render dipping, extremely abf^ird, dangerous, and even .cruel ', I fay confiderlng this, I am much fur- prlfed. Sir, to hear that in one of your incon- clufive and unbecoming illuftratlons, you afked your audience, whether *' if the/^nw/^/Zwi^oftheir •' pots, cups, &c. wou'd cleanfe them." This was defigned as another vulgar refkaion upon the inlnlflers in the eftabllfliment and among the dif- fenters. A judicious friend of mine, who heard andfmlled at the weaknefs of this coarle fimili- tude, obferved, that '' if the pots or cups were *« to be wrapt in cM^, and drawn fuddenly thro* *' the water, they wou'd not be a whit cleaner ** by fuch an operation, than if they were fprin- " kled:' This was a fmart reply, and in your own ftyle too, Sir, I fhall leave the proper appli- cation of it to yourfelf, and the immerged can- (jiidates. * D g I won- C 26 ) 8 I wonder, dear Sir, yoii wou'd drop fuch low hints about the cleanftng quality of immerfton. Is it not poffible, that fometimes in one of your zealous paroxyfms upon this favorite rubje6^, you may forget the important obfervation of the Apof- tle. " Baptifm doth now fave us {not the putting ** away of the filth oithtflefh, but the anfwer of "^2. good confcience toward GoD^)"'uFet. iii. 21. Left you fhou'd overlook the point of moment in this text, permit rae to fuggeft a little paraphrafe iipon it.— —The confcience is rendered goody when it h fprinkkd from the evil of guilt, and the finfe of condemnation, by the blood of Chriji, and when " it is purged from dead works to ferve the ** living God," Heb. ix. 14. — x. 22. Here is a two-fold work of purification which muft pafs^ upon a guilty confcience and a polluted heart ; and which is efieded thro' the powerful efficacy- of the blood of fprinkl'mg. The removal of guilt fron^ the one, and the fanclification of the other, are fymbolically reprefented in the ordinance of baptifin; wherein the element of water operates on the body, as the blood and Spirit of Chriji do upon the immortal foul. Here then we are pre- sented with the harmonious and fignificant co- agency of the " Three that bear witnefs on earth'* i, Johrif V. 8. the fprinkling of the blood of Chriji in juflijicatiojit the fprinkling of the Spirit of Chriji in fan^ijkation, and the fprinkling of the baptifmal water in fealing thofe blefiings on the heart and cpnlcience. Thefe " three agree " in ( 27 ) " in one" and the fame uniforna teftimony to tli? work, offices, and perfon of Him who "-came *' by water and blood," — /« one and the iame glorious co-operation in the falvation of linnersr-?* and in one and the fame indilToluble conne<5^ioei between Chrift, his blood, his Spirit, his facra- ments, his gofpei, his minifters, his people. The water in baptifm only puts away the filth of the fiejh ; but the Spirit and blood remove the poUu'* tion of the fouL The former operates dependent* ly upon and in fubordination to the co-efficiency of the latter; without which, all the pouring* fprinkling, or dipping in the world, cannot purge a guilty confcience. When therefore you urge immerfion, wou'd it not be much more to the purpofe, if you wou'd expatiate upon the purifying virtue of the Re* deemer's blood and Spirit, inftead of laying fuch. an emphaiis on your favorite mode of baptizing? Wou'd it not tend to the awakening and un- deceiving your candidates, rather to prefs on them the important neceffity of the anfmer of a ^ood confcience toward God, than to amufe them with humorous illuftrations, which are fo apt to divert the mind from the grand point ? And, in- ftead of propofing any fimilitudes, which wou'd infmuate, that baptifmal water in immerfion, deanfes better than by pouring or fprinkling ; wou'd it not be more conducive to edification, more Confiftcnt with your important fundion, and more evan- gelical, to preach that one effential baptifm of t)^ D2 J^oly ( i^ ) Holy Ghofl, without which we can nevei^ eiltef heaven whether we be fprinkled or dipped ? 9 You obferve, Sir, 1 am fond of uling the ttrmfpriiikling, and for no other reafon, butb'ecaufc it is the favorite phrafeology of the Holy Ghofl in his word. '* Mofes took the blood of calves and " of goats with watery and sprinkled both " the book and all the people. He sprinkled "** hkewife the tabernacle, and all the irj/els of the miniftry." Heb. ix. 19. 21. Now, Sir, can you poilibly entertain a doubt, whether the people and •the vejfels were as effedlually cleanfed by fprinkling, as if. both the one and the other had been dipped in a baptiftery of blood? If fuch a doubt IhouM remain, the Apoftle I hope will remove it. " Al- ** moft all things are by the law purged, y.«S«5»^Ta8 -•* purified, cleanfed by the (fprinkling of) blood." Heb. ix. 22. So that, if both perfons and I'ejfeh might be faid to have been legally purified oi: -baptized by fprinkling, under the law j is it not rational and fcriptural to appropriate the term, and to adopt the mode, under the gofpel? And does not your fimilitude confequently fall to the ground ? which infinuates that " a vefTcl cannot •' be legally cleanfed, unlefs it be dipt, or that a " perfon may not be evangelically pUrified, un- *V lefs his whole body be immerged in the facramen- '" tary element." Befides ; does riot the very ■mode of adminiftering circumcifion refute this idea ? •I^hat ordinance reprefented the mortification of ■ the heart to lin, the feal of the covenant, and the . '•- cutting ( ^9 ) cutting-off of every carnal fuperfluity conne6led with corrupt flelh and blood. Though it inani- feftly implied a death of the whole man to firi, and a confecration of the whok heart to God, it was neverthelefs applied to but a fmall j}art of the body. Yet, who will dare fay that it was not therefore efedual? Why indeed, according to the ideas of a baptifl, who feems to make the ef.. fence of a facrament to conlift in its application to the whole body, circumciiion ought to have been difpenfed by an univerfal excoriatmu * 10 The Apoftle records that Mofes by faith ** kept the paflbver and the T/rMZ/wg- of blood." Heh* xi. 28. The greek word is ',r^ocrxv ) Son of God be as really fealed in tht fprinUing of .a iitxle baptilmal water, now, as a temporal lalvar tion was of old thro' the jprinkling of a little blood? I hope, dear $ir, by this time, your prejudices jigainft the word fprinkling, and the mode it im- plies, are in fome fmall degree dropt ; efpeciaily, ^ -both the one and the other have the fan^tion pf the Holy Gholl himfelf. I cou'd wifh, that you and ^H your baptift-brethren, inftead of lay- ing fuch a legal ftrefs on going under water, wou'd exhauft all your arguments and exhor- t^Pipns in pointing your hearers to the fountain of Immanuel's blood, which alone can wafli the filthy JEihiop white; and to that true *' walhing ** of regeneration and renewing of the Holy ** Ghoft," without which, whofoever liveth, i^ (Counted dead before God. Left fome of your candidates for dipping fhou'd go down to their •' "poatery grav£," and at laft to the grave of death, •vith " a LYE in their right hand ;" tell them, O tell them. Sir, that not all the water in Jordan can wafh away their innate pollution j and that No outward forms can make them cleany The LEPROSY lies deep within, Tnftead of ridiculing your brethren, who think 'tljiey have fcriptural authority for differing from you on the unimportant fubjecl of dipping, learn at leaft to fpeak tenderly of them, if you think they do not deferve an honorable mention. For W^iatever you may think of many of thofe, who art ( 3t ) arc not of the church, (as you call your fe(?t) I ira " fully perfuaded, and I hope in your coo/^r 'mo- ments you yourlelf will acknowledge) tbef are: «' the angels of the churches and the glory df ** C/Z777?." — Inftead of exciting the contempt of your hearers for the eiiablilhed church, by taking a detached portion of her fervice, and making it the objed of an ungenerous fneepj flrive to treat our venerable yf/w^ 71^^ ^r with fomd^ degree of delicacy and decorum : for you know- in your confcience, that her doBrinalfyftem is built upon the foundation of the Apoftles and Prophets; and that your own diflent from her, is rather a diiTent of difcipline and mn-ejjentialst than of doc^ trine and ejfentiah. I fhou'd now take my leave of you. Sir, but' that I have confidered only one half of the fubjedl which induced me to take up my pen. And, as' that which remains is a point of great importance, I Ihou'd certainly do great injuftice to my read* ers, to my fubjec^, to myfelf, and to you, Sir, if 1 palled it over un-noticed. < — I have already en- deavored to prove from fcripture, reafon, and fads, that dipping is by no means effential to the mode of difpenling baptifm -f -— . that the greek wordjSairrt^^ has not the limited iignification, which bapti/ii t That baptizing- by immerjion was offen dlfpenfed with ia cafes of unavoidable necefTuy, and even in hot countries, is pb.in, from what Cornelius BiJhop of RoTne, Aniw Dom. 251, fays con- ceruing ^Vooa/ian, " iy avlrilr) xAjhj ^ axftlo 7re^(p(;t;6s»j.' " He wa» bapiized by affaGon, or fprinklmg. in the bed in wliich he lay- " — — But thii is Itiil more eyideoi from die tcftimouy of Sr. Cjfprtan, C 32. ) haptijls wou'd affix to it ; but that it includes the ideas of pouring-out , rinfing, fprinkUng and wqfliing in general — that the obfervations you lately made oh the fubjed, were unfolld and unargumen- tative — and that your manner of animadverting on thofe churches which difter from you, was, in the eftimation of many of your judicious hearers, indelicate, un-catholic, and fevere. But, 1 pro- ceed now to confider fome of your flri6lures on Cyprian. The opinion of tins venerable father had been a(l;^ed, whether one in the communion of the church, having been par- taker of clynic haptifm, or baptifm hi bed, ought to be re-bap- tized. To this he anfwer-s, " You inquire, what I think of fuch as obtain the grace (of baptifm) in time of their ficknefs and infirmity ; whether they aie to be accounted lawful (law- fully baptized) chrlftians, becaufe they are not waflicd all over, with tlie water of falvailon, but have only fome oi it poured On them. I judge thus; that the divine favors are not maimed oi ueakened, fo that any thing lefs than the mhole of them is con- veyed } for the contagion of fin is not in the facrament wafhed off by the fame meafures, that the dirt of the Jkin and of the hody is waftied oft in an ordinary bath : {o as that there fiiou'd be atjy necefiity oi /cap, and a laige fjli-pond or pool. In the facra- jnents, when necejjify compels, the Jhoile/i ways of tranfa(^ing the divine matters, do by Gods gracious difpenfalion, confer the "WHOLE BENEFIT. And no man need thcrcforf think othcr- •wife, becaufe thefe fick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an affujion or fprinkUng \ as the holy ficripture by the prophet Ezel.iel (ays, /wzV/spb. inkle clean ztiater upon you, and you fliall he clean. Sec. Therefore, if any one think that they obtain no benefit as having only an aff'ufion of the water of falvation ; don't let him mijlake fo far, as that the parties if they recover of their Ccknefs fhou'd be bap- fized again." The great Dr. Whiiaher fays, *' In the cafe of infants, and of fickJy people, I think fprinkHtig fufficient." -" And our great reformer WickUff fays, in Trialog. 1. iv. c. ii. *' It is not njaterial whether they he dipped., once, or thrice^ or water be poured on their heads." See IFalli Hiftory of InfaiJt- Baptifm. ( 33 ) on infant -hapt if m, and to vindicate that new-tefia- ' ment lign and feal of the covenant from the pre- judices, oppolition, and mifreprefentation of ana-- baptifm^ II. The grand point which the reformed church- es Contend for, in their oppolition to anabaptifnt is, the admiffion of infants into the vilible church by tlie ordinance of baptifiu; which is both a lign and feal of the bleffings of the covenant, and is a manifeft fuccedaneum to the old-teftament rite of circumcijion* The children of God's Ifrael were taken into covenant with him under the law ; and we maintain that this privilege ^is by no means loft under the gofpel-difpenfation, but is ftill con- tinued to the vilible church, by the inftitution of infant-baptifm. This the Baptifts have always denied ; and they not only do not baptize their own children, but likewife rebaptize all their profelytes, though they may have been baptized before in their infancy. This latter circumftance has defervedly procured for them the name of Anahaptijis, or rebaptizers ; though they do notchoofe to embrace thisappel-^ lation themfelves, becaufe they wou'd inlinuate that zw/(:rw^-baptifm is no baptifm at alL By rejecting this fignificant gofpel rite, they mutilate the new-teftament church in one of her important facraments ; they deprive the children of believing parents of a privilege, which they en- E joyed ( 34 ) joyed under the difpenfation of Mofes, and whic^ God never took from them under that of Chrift ; and, by prelling adult-immerfion with bigoted zeal on thofe who were baptized in infancy, they have greatly annoyed the peace of the reformed churches, and embarrallbd the minds of the llm- pie and uneftablilhed. Whatever other advantages the Anahapt'ifti may have on their lide, they certainly have not that of antiquity, * for we hear nothing conliderable of ihem till about the year 151 7. Their origin was mean ; their principles were corrupt ; their morals depraved j and their dillent from the reformed churches, was then deemed heretical. Befides the vitious tendency of their principles, and the fcan- dalous nature of their lives, they were fanatics •f* in the higheft degree. They preached up an abfo- lute freedom from all fubjedion to the civil power; which, by an idi of enthuliafm • ahd rebellion, they labored to monopolize themfelves. They affeded to eftablilh a fpiritual regency, like the mad Fifth-Monarchy-men in Charles the fecond's reign. And the king of this new Jerufalem was * Good Mr. Philpot, who flourifhed and was martyred during the bloody anCpiccs of QiieenMaij, m a letter to a ftllow-pril'oner of lib oil the fubjeiSl of iufant-baptifm, fiiys, " The veiity of " antiquity is on our fide: and the Anabapti/is hive noihinfj but Ijes ," for them and new imaginations; wl>ich/«^« the baptifm ot' " children to be a Pope's commandment." Walla hiftoi}-, p. 424. t They pretended to propliecy and revelation : and one Tho- mas Muncer blafpbeniouUy ftylcd himielf ihejxuord of ihc Lord and of Gideon. ' one ( 35 ) one John of Leydcn. This mad ring-leader, at the head of his ranting fe6^, feized on Munjier a town in Germany ; where he was killed in the m/d'ft of his foolifh ufurpation, and his feet difperfed in the year 1536. From this time they feem to have been cured of their civil pretenfions, but iViIl re- tained their religious peculiarities refpe6iing adult* immerfion. The Anabaptijls made their appearance In Ger- many a little after the remarkable period of Lu- ther s reformation. As their fentiments and con- duci: attradcd his attention, the impiety of both received many a fevere fcourge from the tongue and pen of that great reformer. In his epiftle to the Galatians, he paints their enormities in the. jnoft hideous, yet true colors j and gives them £uch a chaftifement as their caufe deferved. Calvin is next upon the lift of thofe, who en- countered the jinabaptijis, and detecfled the falla- cious tendency of their errors. In his Injiitutes, he conliders all the parts of the controverfy relative to infant-baptifm, and, in the mpft argumentative and fcriptural manner, purfues aiiahaptifni thro' all thofe low fubterfuges and pitiful evalions, under which it has ever been obliged to fcreen itfelf from the vigorous attacks of fcripture and reafonj efpecially when thefe weapons have been bran- dilhed by fuch champions for truth, as Luther and Calvin, A cotemporary of Calvin, and a fiery zealot gi). the fubjecl of adult-baptifm, was one Servetus. E? " This ( 3^ ) This unhappy man, who was a peft to the church of Gd'TZf'u^jtook up weapons in defence of the caufc oi the Anabaptifts^ and (as Calvin faith in his In~ Jlitut€s) *' was the great glory of that company" 5 {"^ glory ^ by the bye, which anabaptifm, whether ancient or modern, has no reafon to be very proud of) Servetus, in muftering all his logical forces, contrived to glean together twenty arguments, fuch as they are ; which he levelled againft the opinion of the reformed churches on the right of infant-baptifm. Thefe twenty arguments, (or ra- ther, vile fophifms) Calvin enumerates, attacks, and refutes ; and clofes his refutation of the Sophifter's quibbles, by faying, " 1 truft I have now proved ** with what feeble fuccours Servetus hath holpen ** his Jilly brethren the Anabaptijis." Among the modern advocates for the new-tefta- ment ordinance of infant-baptifm, I know none fuperior, and very few equal to Mr. Bojiwick, This excellent writer was Minifter of the preiby-. terian church mNew Tork, and died, in the midll; of great ufefulnefs, in the year 1763, and only in the 44th year of his age. Some perplexities among his flock, occafioned by the intrulion oi anabap- tifm, obliged him to defend the right of infant- baptifm, in feveral maflerly difcourfes, delivered to his congregation on that fabje(?t. Thefe dif- courfes are abridged, and united. The main ar- guments are adduced j and, being methodically arranged, exhibit, in a fmall compafs, a firm bat- tery of fgrlpture an4 reafon, which bids dejiance tQ> ( 37 ) to the attacks of all the Anabaptijis in the world, Thtjiyle of Mr. Boftwick's vindication is nervous and elegant ; his method, extremely perfpicuous and concife; and his arguments are deep, weighty, and conclulxve. I have produced this little iketch, refpetfling the rife, progrefs, and oppolition of the German Ana- baptijis, not in order to compare them with their brethren of that denomination in this kingdom. I rather rejoice in having an opportunity of exhibit- ing fuch a flriking contraft. For, the only like- nefs I can trace between the parents and their chil- dren, confifts but in one point ; the unlikenefs, in many particulars. The former were rebels, enthu- liafts, ranters, antinomians; but the latter arc peaceable fubje61;s ; many of them are found, or- thodox chriftians ; and in general, the Anabaptijis in this kingdom conftitute a very refpedable bod/ of proteftant-dilTenters. The only feature where- in modern Anabaptijis feem to refemble their Ger-' man anceftors, conlifts, in their ftrong attachment to adult-baptifm. What a pity, when the veffel had been purged from the putrid mixture oi rebel- lion, ranterifm, and impiety, that it was not alfo pu- rified from the foul taint of a Jacr anient al error ^ and the four dregs of party-bigotry ! Then the refemblance between German and Englijh anabap- tifm, wou'd have intirely ceafed. But I forget the poet's obfervation ; ^0 femel efi imbuta recent, fervablt odorem %eiia V>iv. . . Though ( 3^ ) - Thongli you may have thought me tedious in producing this little Sketch from church-hiftory, concerning the origin of your Gtrman brethren ; yet, I prefume you will not deem me impertinent in fo doing, lince fuch a circumftance fhews, that pnahaptijni has been oppofed by fome of the bright- eft ornaments in the church of C//r//? j and that thofe, who firil: reje(51:ed infant-baptifm, were the Tile/i of men, and therefore very unlikely to have been under the guidance of the Spirit of truth. And, though I verily believe many of the modern Anahaptijh are fpiritually-minded men j yet, me- thinks, the fourcc, from whence they have deriv- ed their peculiar fentimcnt, ought to excite fuf- picions that it is not of fcriptural and primitive authenticity. I am fully perfuaded, that the matter in debate is not of an indifferent nature j and therefore that every circumftance, which points out the novelty ^nd evil tendency of original anahaptijni, ferves to throw light on the nature of the prefent fubjecfi. *^ If infant-baptifm be a meer nullity (fays Mr. Bofi- wick) as fome pretend ; then we, together with the generality of the proteftant churches, are, in fad, a company of unbaptized heathens ; who have nei- ther churches, minifters, nor ordinances, ac- cording to the inftitution of yefus Chriji. And although it muft be allowed, that there are, and always have been, vaftly more truly - religious people, who have been baptized in infancy, than ptliers ; ^'et, all who have been fo baptized, arc, Oft ( 39 ) on thefe principles (of the anabaptlf^s) cut of the vilible church ; and the confequence will bey that greater numbers are faved out of the church, than in it ; wliich is very ahJurcU to fay nothing worfe." — Again, " If infant-baptlfm be a. divine inftitution, then, they who confent to be bap- tized in their adult age, do, in that tranfa(?tiort neceffarily renounce a divine inftitution, and' an ordinance of Jejus Chrifi ; and, as it were, vacate' the former feal of the covenant between God and them J they practically fay, there are no baptized perfons, no regular miniftcrs, nor ordinances, in all the numerous profeffing churches, but: their own." Conlidering then, that fuch important evils re- fult from a reception of your peculiar tenet ; that it has been ever oppofed by the reformed church- es ; that fome of truth's brigheft ornaments have made it matter of earneft debate ; and that the church- of which I have the happinefs to be a member, manifefily rejeds it as an error; I flat- ter myfelf, you will not think it unreafonable or prepofterous in me to ftand forth in defence of that very facrament, by which I myfelf was made an initiated " member of Christ's" vilible church " a child of God" by an external cove- nanted relation, and " an inheritor of the king- dom of heaven" or a pofTeffor of the privileges of that gofpel - kingdom, which John the Baptift pointed to, when he faid, " the kingdom of hea- ven is at hand", and to which Christ himfelf re- ferred ( 4^ ) ferrecf, faying, " Of fuch (little children) is ttie kingdom of heaven" ; of which privileges, bap- tifm, the feal of the covenant, is furely not the leaft. But notwithftanding the voice of antiquity, and the ufage of all the reformed churches in favor of infant-baptifm, you ftill think fcripture is on yoUr fide. If that can be proved, it muft be acknowledged that fuch divine fan6lion ought to turn the ballance, and outweigh all the moft ve- nerable human authority. But, we, on the other hand, are convinced that fcripture is our friend, and are therefore willing to reft the matter on the decilions of that infallible judge. Let me howe- ver, whifper into your ear, a hint of no inconfide- rable moment ; and that is, if the baptizing of infants can, by an uninterrupted and authentic chain of church-hiftory, be traced (as it moft un- deniably can) even to the cotemporarles of the apoftles and fome of their moft eminent difciples j then furely, fuch a circumftance makes more ftrongly for us, then a retrofpe^l: to the German Ranters can for the prefent Anabaptifts. However, Jet us fee how you defend the point from fcripture. I I find it is cuftomary with baptift-minlftcrs, to preach a fermon, fuitable and preparatory to dipping', which fermon is generally founded up- on fome appofite portion of fcripture. This, it feems, you did in this town ; and chofe for your text uFet. iL 21. " Leaving us an example^ •* that • ( 41 ) " that ye Ihould follow his fteps."— What yoMt audience in general may have thought ref^edting the fuitablenefs of this text, 1 cannot tell. 1 will however venture to affirm. Sir, that you were rather unfortunate in your choice. My Bible is now before me ; and, whije I am attentively eif- amining the context, and carefully perufing the whole chapter ; to my aftonifhment, I can- not iind the fmallefl: trace of that fubje6^, which you thought proper to eftablilh on the words of the apoftle. The chapter is introduce^, with an exhortation to the new-born babes ii^ Christ, to lay alide certain abominable tem- pers, which might vitiate their tafte for the unadulterated milk of the word — to come to Christ as to a living ftone, that they might be built up, in their mofl: holy faith, a fpiritual houfe, &c. ' — their pecuHar privileges, dignity^ obligation to holinefs, bed are reprefented undet the titles of " chofen generation, royal prieft- •' Wood, &c." — they are exhorted to abftain from flefhly lufts, and to have their converfation kone/l among the gentiles — not to be petulant ta the higher powers, but quietly to fubmit to every ordinance of man, for the Lord*s fake — to live as the free-men of Christ; but not fo to ^^«/^ that liberty as to make it a religious cloke for ma^ licioufnefs-^ to ho?wur all men, by a calm, loving, refpeilful deportment — * relative duties are en- forced— and then, the context exhibits Christ as the fpotlefs example of untverfal obedience; F of ( 42 ) £»f gulleleffnefs, meeknefs, patience, refignaCiorr, &c. &e. To thefe heavenly tempers, which are of more worth than the gold of Ophir, and of greater im- portance in real chrilVianity than ten thoufand dippings of the body, believers are called ; and to thefe the apoftle exhorts them by propoiing to their imitation the immaculate obedience of the blefled Jejus. But is there here the fmalleft refe- rence made to adult - immerlion ? The wife apoftle dwells intirely upon what he himfelf calls " the anfwer of a good confcience towards God ;'* but drops not a Ungle hint about " putting " away the filth of the flefh." And yet, if he thought as you do, that " adult-dipping is ejfen- " Hal to the obedience of faith ;'* 1 appeal to your own fenfe and candor, whether the a- poftle wou'd have emitted it in his catalogue of . imitabilia'^ in the life of Christ ; and whether fuch omijfion does not imply , that, fo far from Conftituting an elTential part of the obedience of faith, it delcrves to be ranked among the non- ejfentiah ? 2 To be explicit with you. Sir ; I by no means approve of a method adopted by many preachers in their public harangues ; which confifts in making choice of a text, that perhaps is as remote from their fubjecfl, as the caft is from the weft. This incoherent mode of preaching is fuggefted often by ignorance, or * Things to be imitated. llgotry J C 43 ) bigotry ; and not feldom, by contemptible vanity^. And, although an injudicious audience fnight applaud fuch incoherency, and greatly admirer the preacher, while he ftrains every nerve, in order to difplay his great abilities ; yet I am con- vinced fuch preaching feldom tends to edification. If indeed, it was adopted, merely to illuftrate a favorite tenet, the abfurdity wou'd not be fo great. But, when it is ufed, with an intent to eftablijh, and to demonfirate, it then becomes not only highly; abfurd, but extremely dangerous too. By fuch a mode, a man might graft on God's word, the moft egregious nonfenfe, the mofl horrid blafphemy, or the moft damnable herefy. An inftance of th.q firft of thefe three evils, 1 remember to have heard of, in an ignorant, bigoted Secedor -, who would inlift, that the parchments, which Faul left at Troas, and about which he was fo anxious, mufl: have heen " the foolamn lague aund coov'nant." * 3 But you ftill think, that your text fufficlently warranted your applying it to Chrifi's baptifm ; and, taking it for granted that he was immerged by John the Baptiji, you therefore propofed the Redeemer as an example to be followed in adult- baptifm, as well as in every thing elfe. But, according to this mode of extenditig and applying fcripture, you might have propofed Chriji as an example for many things, utterly impradicable, ^nd grofsly abfurd. For inftance ; according to * He meant to have faitl •' the/olemn league and covenant." this (.44 ) tills rule, i^6 otight never to be baptized, till \vc have arrived it the age of 30 years ; no where, but in Jordan, and by none, but yohn, the foh of Zacharias. The firfi: of thefe abfurd punctilios-, Servetus literally inlifted upon ; enjoining the 30th year as the only proper time for baptlfm, though (as Calvin fays of this blundering Anabaptiji) *' when he ftiffly required this time in others, yet **. lie began at the 21ft year of his age to boaft him- *' felf to be a prophet : hereby affuming to himfelf f' the office of a teacher, before he could (upon his *^^'own principle) be a member of the church.'* 4 However," you will perhaps aft:, " liChrifi f*" has not left us an example oY adult-baptifm, ' '''which we ought to iitiitate, why did he not *' fubmit to be baptized T^f/orf he was an adult?** To this I reply, that this part of the Redeemer's condu61: vvas founded On a very significant and important circumftancc. "As he was made under the law, he was therefore,' circumci fed the eighth Hay, according to the paVt'iciila'r requirement of itiit old-teftanient rite. But as cirCumctfidn, to- gether with every other ceremony. Was to be abolilhcd through the introduclion of a higher difpeniation than that of Mojes; it was tllei^efore ^eceilary that this fupefior difpenfation of the ^ofpel, Ihould be ulhered in by the ordinance of JtffLptiJm, as a figfi and feal of that covenant, which circumcifion of old both iignified and confirmed. Kow although, John baptized vaft numbers before 'he adminiftered that ordinance to Chriji ; yet " th9 ( 45 ) " the kingdom of heaven," or the actual openirtg of the gofpel-kingdom, was then only at hand\. But, when the Son of God himfelf was baptized in y or dan, then he " that hath the key of David" re- vealed the rich treafures of the new-tettament, and opened a door of admiffion into the gofpel- difpenfation. This was the period of Chrift'sio- lemn inauguration to his public office, which was announced and confirmed by his Fatiier's audible teftimony from heaven, and by the defcent of the Holy Ghoft. Into this public office he was initiated by •baptifm. Now, as it was particularly x:ommanded under the law that none fhou'd com- mence priejis till the 30th year ; * in conformity to this legal injun6lion, our Lord deferred his ^(flual aflimiption of the high-priefthood 'till th^t 'time of life; and for that reafon, he could not, Conliftently with his official capacity, be baptized 'till he arrived at the 30th year of his age. Had the Redeemer been bapti-zed as well as circumcift'd in his infancy, we fhould then probably have m- ferred, that nontbut infants ought to be partakers of baptifm. And had he been circumcifed as MrhhaU was, when an adult, as well as baptized, 'then, we Ihould have confined baptifm, ifitirely perhaps, to adults. Whereas, having fubmitted to one ordinance in irfaiicy, and to the other, in adult years, he has thereby fanc^lified both flates, 'and exemplified the admiffion of infants anddidtxxlxs * See J^urnhers Iv. 3. compaied with Luke iv. 33. into ( 46 ) into the vlfible cluirch. For, if Chrifs having been baptized when an adult, be a proof that 720;/^ Z'^^ adults ought to be baptized; then, as Abraham was circumcifed when an adult, the fame kind of reafoning might be brought to prove tliat none but adults ought to have been circmncifed under the lav/. Thus the arguments of Anabaptifis on this head prove too mucli, and confequently in- volve their tottering caufe in unavoidable abfur- dity ; in which I fliall leave it for a while, till I prefent the pious reader with a fweet quotation from Bijhop Hall's contemplations. " What is bap- " tif?n (fays the judicious Prelate) but evangelical *• circumcifion f And what was circumcifion but a *' legal baptifm ? One, hoih. Jupplied , a.nd fucceeded " the other. Chriji would be circumcifed, to *' {^nS:ify his church that was; and baptized, to " fan<5iify his church that 7Z?oi^/(i be : that fo in ** both teftaments he might open a way to heaven. ** And, no fooner is the water poured on his head, " than the heavens are opened, and the Holy *' Ghoft is poured on that head which was *' baptized:' ^ 5 However, perhaps you again argue, that tlie (ircumcijing of infants was commanded by a poji^ tii'e law ; but that the baptizing them is no where exprefsly injoined throughout the whole new- teftament. Well, even Juppojlng that no explicit command to baptize infants be found there ; yet jnay there not be an implicit one ? And will not th^t a^ effedually eftablilh the cuftom, as if it was exprej/ly ■( 47 ) expreffly commanded ten thoufand times overj? Is there any pofitive injund^ion to be found through- out the whole new-teftament for the obfervation of the firji day of the week ? Yet who doubts whe- ther that is our chriftian Jahbath? Where is it ex- plicitly commanded that women fhould receive the Lord's /upper ^ Yet who difputes their right to that facrament ? Where is it exprejly injoined that the head of a family lliould pray with his houf- hold ? Yet what pious man would doubt his ob- ligation to that domeftic duty ? lince it is implicitly urged in various general exhortations to prayer. From whence, as well as from numerous other inftances, it is evident that virtual or implicit com- mands are every whit as binding, as the moft exprefs ones. Indeed an explicit command to baptize infants was not neceflary, lince it was virtually (I had al- moft faid exprefsly) injoined by the very inftitutlon of circumcifion. For, if that lign and feal of the covenant under the old-teftament difpenfation was adminiflered to infants ; it was aim oft needlefs to give any frelh explicit injundion refpec^ling their admiffion into the vifible church by baptifm : lince for the fame reafon, that they enjoyed that privi- lege undifturbed, for near four thoufand years before the coming of Christ, they ought to be kept in pofTeffion of it, the rather, fince his incar- nation. Becaufe, Christ himfelf is the fame; His grace x\it fame; his covenant the fame; the feat of the covenant the fame in lignificance and re- » prefentation j ( 48 ) prefentatioQ ; ^nd the privileges of the covenant the fame, under both difpenfations : except in a few particulars, wherein the k^w has confiderably the advantage of the old j which fuperiority, by the bye, would ceafe, if infants were not to te baptized. 6 Did not our bleffed Lord KimMf virtually command infants to be baptized, in the following addrefs to his difciples ? " Suifer litde children to " come unto me, and forbid them not ; for, of *' fuch is the kingdom of God." Lz^y^^ xviii. i6. The evangelift fays, ver. 15, that " they brought •* ra (b?soft confiderable objeciion, that hath ever been ur^ed againft infcuil- laplifm.'' — See the Family ExpofUor on Rom. iv. ii. imder ( 54 ) "tinder the law. It Is a feal of the covenant of grace ; and therefore the Apoftle calls it the " clr- ** cumcifion oiChriJi" Col. ii. ii. or the chrif- tian circumcilion. ■ I have now. Sir, endeavoured, with all the ac- curacy in my power, to ftate the four points upon which the hinge of this part of the fubje^il: prin- cipally turns. I think it has been fufficiently proved that the Abrahamic covenant was the cove- nant of grace ; from the tenor of its charter, aS- well as from the exprels teftimony of fcripture — ; that the promife made to Abraham contained the ilibftance of all the gofpel-promifes given to God's covenanted people under the new teftament 5 and therefore included the infant-feed of believers under both difpenfations — that Abraham's feed comprehended believing Jews and Gentiles, to- gether with their ehilclren to the end of the world — 'and that circumcifion under the law was a/(f<2/ of covenant-bleffings, as baptifm is now un- der the gofpel. The confequence then naturally deducible from thefe allowed premifes, is ; that the right of infant-baptifm is founded upon the covenant oi grace, upon the comprehenlive extent of covena.nt-promifes , upon the common priviliget of Abraham's feed, and upon the very nature^ meaning, and intent of an inftituted feal. If then the covenant be the fame, the promifes the fame, the privileges the fame ; why fhould infants be denied that ordinance, which feals thofe blef- iings now, that once were confirmed to them by circumcilion ? ( 6S ) .circumcilion ? If they are capable of the thing _Jignified by baptifm ; why not of the outward and vilible ftgn ? If they are made fafceptlble of the covenant-bleffings/ffl'/f Holy Ghoft, and cut to the heart by the pungen- cy of the Apofile's perfualive arguments, cried out, " Men and brethren, what Ihall we do ?" To this important inquiry the Apofile returns as. important an anfwer, " Repent and be baptized '^* every one of you, in the name of yefus Chrift, ** for the remiffion of Uns, and ye Ihall receive ** the gift of the Holy Ghoft." And, as a motive for their turning to Gnd by repentance; as a ground for their fubmitting to baptifm, the feal of the covenant j and as a certain pledge of their receiving the gift of the Holy Ghoft ; he urges, ** For the promife is unto you, and to your *' children, &c." As if the Apoftle fhould fay— The promife of the Holy Ghofl, and that grand original promife made to Abraham^ whereby the gift of the Spirit was afcertained to him and his feed, is to you, therefore be baptized— But the pro- mife is not confined to you alone, but is extended to your children as confederate ; and therefore, as the promife made to Abraham comprehended his infant-feed, and brought them under circumcifion the feal of the covenant, fo your children are like- wife interefled in the fame promife, and therefore Co be fharers with you in the new-teflament feal, baptifm : — ' t 61 ) haptifm : — Yea the fame promife reaches to all that are afar off. Gentiles as well as Jews, in thcmoft remote part of the globe, the moft diftant period of time, or the deepeft alienation of aife6tion : — even to as many as the Lord Ihall call, externally by his word, and internally by his Spirit ; and to the confederate children of thofe thus called among the Gentiles, to the end of time. But to this interpretation you are ready to throw in various objections ; and' I am as ready to attempt a removal of them. (i) Perhaps you will contend, that the promife in the text, lignifies repentance -, and as repenting and believing the gofpel, can only be performeci by adults, therefore none, but fuch as come under that predicament, ought to be baptized. — But to affert this, is to overlook the peculiar phrafeology of fcripture, to break the grammatical connection of the fentences, and to contrad the extenlive promifes of the new^ Covenant, (i) In what part of the infpired writings is repentance ever called the promife ? I defy you. Sir, to produce alingle paflage from the whole word of God, wherein that penitential grace is once called by fuch an eminent and diftinguilhing title. But cvenfuppojing (though by no means granting) that the Apoftle did give it that peculiar appellation ; will you infer from thence, that the promife would not extend to the children of the Loi'd's covenanted people? The Word lA-erama., which we traiiflatc repentance, pro- perly lignifies a change of mind or a turning of the H heart ( 58 ) %eart Goc?-\vard. Repentance then Is a work of* God, wrought internally upon the heart. Now cannot the Omnipontent Agent in this work, as ealily find accefs to the heart of an infant, as to that of 2in adult ? You cannot deny this, without blafphemy. Then, if it be the internal grace that is the ejjence of repentance ; and if this can be implanted in the breafts of infants -, why may not the promife of this internal change be made to them as well as to others f And the fame obferva-' tion is true with refpe6\ to faith. Though the exprefs a6\ of believing is practicable only by adults; neverthelefs, infants are as capable of the internal habit as they. For as one effential peculiarity of faith is to " purify the heart {' infants are indifput- ably capable of fuch effential purification — But your mifiake on this fubje6l arifes from your al- ways connecting with repentance the idea of a ^^uh- VicprofeJJion; which is but a remote circumftance even in penitent adults themfelves, and is by no means an efjential one : fince the vileft hypocrites may publicly profefs to repent and believe, and yet be as eflranged from a purifying change of heart, as unbaptized heathens. (2) It is contra- ry to grammar, to make repentance the promife al- luded to by the Apoflle. Let his own words fpeak, " — Ye fliall receive the gift of the Holy " Gholt: for, the promife" What promife? Certainly, of the Holy Ghofi : for, that is the im- mediate antecedent. This interpretation is agree- able to the ftyle of fcripture ; which very fre- quently ( 59 ) quently calls the Spirit " the promife of the Father, '' the holy Spirit of promifi, the promife of the " Holy Ghoft." Jols i. 4. Eplu I 13. Ji.'Is ii. 23. Some indeed have fuppofcd that by the promife, we are to underftand that original promife made to jibraham and his feed. This fuppolition is not al- together defiitute of fcripture-ground ; for that covenant-prom ife eftabhlhed with the Patriarch, is frequently called the promise, y.xr i^oxy,v by way of eminence and difl:in6lion. See Rom. iv. 13. Gal. m. 19, 29. Hib. vi. 13. Rom. iv. 16. And indeed it is not unnatural to fuppofe this, from the very drift of the Apoftle's addrefs. For as he was urging upon the Jews the neceility of fubmitting to the gofpel-ordinance of haptifm, this might of confequence lead him up to that origi- nal promife, by virtue of which Abraham and his feed were taken into covenant with God in circum- cifion. But whether it lignifies the grand cove- nant-promife, or the promife of the Spirit, the in- ferential argument will be the fame ; lince even the promife of the Spirit is a covenant-promife, and is founded upon that made to Abraham. For, thus faith the Lord, '' I will pour my Spirit upon " x\\y feed, and my bleiTmg upon thy offspring.'* Ifaiah xliv. 3. Let any perfon but compare this^ promife with the 5th verfe of the chapter, and he will be convinced, that it extends to the covenant- feed of Jews and Gentiles. The argument refult- ing from which is ; if the covenant-promife of the C 60 ) the Spirit included the infant-feed of the one, fure'- ly it could not exclude that of the ciher. (2) You cannot perhaps agree to my interpre- tation, becaufe it makes the covenant-promife extend to the infant-ieed of beUevcrs, and gives them a right to baptifm. But why fhould you obje^l to this ? Is it not a fcriptural fuppolition ? Pid not the promife reach them under the law ? "Why not, under the gofpel ?i " O but the wo^rd xsxmi children, lignifies defcendents in general." Well, and therefore-^ — " it excludes infants, and ca;n> mean only adults in particular." Logica Baotienfis\ According to this particular mode of interpreting and reafoning, it feems infants are m part of a people's Di^scENDENTs. And when it is faid that Zacharias and Elizabeth had no child rey.vov^ I fup- pofe we are to infer, that they had no grozvn-up children. Argumentum palmarium I I will endea- vour to expofe the abfurdity and fallacy of this iDurious notion in a familiar illuftration. — A king gives a free grant of alarge inheritance, conneded with certain titles]of nobility, to one of his fubjeds, and to his children for ever. As faft as the heirs apparent fucceed each other, they are vefted with the eftates and dignities of their anceftors; the benefits ariling from which, fome of them pofTels even when in a flate of infancy. Thefe privileges they enjoy undifturbed, whether infants or adults, for hundreds and hundreds of years. We will- fuppofe, that in procefs of time, a future Mo- narch makes fome particular inftitutions, which do ( 6i ) do not in the Icaft alter the ejjential nature of the original grant, or affe6l the fubje(5l of the title^ deeds; but only concern the appointment of a new badge oi nobWity . Proper officers are delegated to draw out d^ fairer copy of the ancient records; and the original grant is ratified by the king's ov/n feal ; the imprefs of which is upon the whole, the fame as of old, fome fniall variation in the fymhol only excepted. Thus the royal ajfenf, the renew- ed deed, and the affixed feal, all concur to eftab- lilh the ancient grant, and to make it like " the ** law of the Medes and Ferjians which altereth *' not." And thus the matter ftands, for hundreds of years, after this renewed and additional ratifi- cation. It happens however, that during the minority of fome of the heirs apparent, certain litigators, who envied them their privileges, labor to difpolefs them of the fame, by an attempt to demonftrate, that the royal grant pajjed by the infant-(\icct^oxs to the ellates, and limited the pof- feffion intirely to the adult-hxdinch.ts. As certain heralds from the king, as well as the king himfelf, had publicly proclaimed the fuperiority of the- latter grant above the old one, in point of privi^ lege ; many were at a lofs to conjecture, upon what the unheard-of innovation of the litigators cou'd pofiibly be founded. The matter at laft comes to an e eclair cij) merit ; and the whole litiga- tion refts upon the following circumftance. In. the old records, the grant ran thus. " I will be " a king to thee, and to thy feed*' But in the later ( 62 ) /!a^ ( 67 ) penfatlon, were baptized into the merit oiChrifl*s death, and into an obligation oi dying \.ofin. But does he mention a lingle word about making a public profejjion of this ? Is it fair, is it pious, firft to interpolate the facred text, and then to found a fav^orite point upon fuch unwarranted interpola- tion ? By thus taking a detached portion, and either adding or diminijliing a word, may not fcripture be made to fpeak any thing? — It is rea- dily allowed, that fuch adults as were converted from heathemfm orjudaifm, were obliged to make a public declaration of their dying to fin upon their being baptized. But does it follow there- fore, that none but adults were baptized in the primitive church ? Cannot infants, as well as they, die to lin, and be baptized into the 7nerit of Chris's death ? Circumcifion was as lignificant a fymbol of a death unto lin as haptifm. Yet in- fants were circumcifed under the abfolute incapa- city of making any public profejjion. And if the want of the one did not incapacitate them for admiilion to the other, under the law j why Ihould it under the gofpel ? 6 Though infants cannot make an explicit profeflion of dying to fin, yet they can, a Tirtual one. They can even join in taking the Lord for their God ; and it is well known, that, under the law, they were conlidered as a party in the avowal of the divine caufe, and in fome of the moft folemn covenant-a^s that ever y/ere eftablilhed between God and his people. Of ( ^^ ) Of this the foUawing paffage is a proof. " Ye •' ftand this day, all of you, before the Lorq *• your God ; your captains of your tribes, your f* elders, and your officers, with all the men ** of Ifrael ; your little -ones, your wives, *' and the Granger that is in thy camp ; that ** thou fhouldeft enter into covenant with the *' Lord thy God, and into his oath, &c." DeiU. xxix. 10. N. B. The names of the little- dNES are particularly recognized upon this folemn tranfadion ; and thev^ as well as the agedy are reprefented as making a public vir- tual prof ejjion of allegiance to the God of Ifrael, and of entering into covenant with him. — - Ano- ther appofite paffage is in Joel ii. 1 5. In order to deprecate the divine vengeance, and to im- plore mercy, the Lord commands the prophet ** to call a folemn aflembly." But who are to compofe this folemn alfembiy ? Only the aged f whofe venerable years and excellent wifdom, might grace, dignify, and folemnize the awful meeting ? No. Even the hoary head, and eloquent tongue^ ihall not upon this occalion engrofs all the honor. The Lord will " ordain ftrength and " perferivu is of more general import, and fignihes to make difciples. If this interpretation be admitted, (and what man of candor or learning will oppofe it ?) then it muft follow that infants and little children may be dijcipled to Chri/i. And that they are called difciples in the word of God, is plain from Peter* s expoftulation with the judaizing bigots at Jerufa- lem, ■ ' Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon ** the neck of the difciples r" A5is xv. lo. This addrcfs was occafioned by fome corrupters of the gofpel ( 78 ) gofpel, wlio faid, *' Except ye be circumciled, " ye cannot be faved." The yoke then was cir- tumcifion. The perfons upon whom this yoke was put are called difcipks. But the yoke was put upon infants. Therefore they, as well as adults, are ranked arnongft Chriji's difcipks. — And that the greek word has the general iignification 1 contend for, is undeniably plain from the tefti- mony of that excellent faint and fervant of Jefus Chrift Juftin Martyr. In his apology for the Chrif- tians delivered to the Emperor * and Senate of Jlome, he has the following remarkable note. *' Ka? TtoXXov TiPiS JcJ woXXflsi E|>}>coi(]8Tat x^ iQaoixriKoi/Tdrcci, ot ix. fons among us of 60 and 70 years old, ofbothfexes, who were discipled to Chrift Iti their childhood, do continue uncorrupt." Now this authority of 'Juf- tin Martyr is the more weighty, inafmuch as the author of it wrote but 90 years after St. Matthew, and therefore muft be allowed to be a competent judge of the Apoftle's meaning. His teftimony therefore proves that there were co-temporaries with himfelf, who muft have been difcipled to Chriji fo early as even in the days of the Apoflles; that they were made difciples in their childhood; and, ^hat as Jufiin Martyr ufes the very fcflne word with jhe Apoftle, this fixes the meaning of the term, and eftablilhes the mode of difcipUng infants, as well as ^dults, by baptifm. So that, conhdering the general fenor of our Lord's charge to the Apofllesj— that the *.. Anloniims Pius, ( 79 ) tlie univerfal term all nations cannot, without gfeat abfurdity, be applied to adults only, but muft, ac- cording to the very import of language, include infant's and little children ; — that many young perfons are capable of religious inftru61:ion, and of every effential qualification required of candi- dates for baptiQn; — and that Juflin Martyr's ufe of the word i*-«.%rivu determines its precife jigni- fication, by extending it to children as well as adultsj — confidering thefe particulars, it is evi- dent, that our Lord^ charge, fo far from fup- porting, abfolutely overturns anahaptifm, and efta- bliilies the contrary fentiments. 12 As to the arguments founded on adult- baptifms mentioned in fcripture, they have not the leaft weight. For, the inftances recorded there fefpecf): thofe only, who had been profelyted to the faith, when adults, either from the prejudices of judaifm, or the grofs darknefs of keathenifm. But, where is there mention of the baptizing any adults, who were defcended from chriftian parents, and had the advantage of a gofpel education? You cannot produce a lingle inftance of this kind from the whole new tellament. And therefore your arguments on this head are nothing to the purpofe. We affert as well as you, that thofe, who are brought up Jews, Infidels, or Heathens, ought firfl to embrace chriltianity, before they are admitted into the vilible church ; and that in all fuch inftances adult-baptifm is highly fcrlptu- ral. The cafe was exadly the fame under the ( 8o ) lawi When any adult-gentiles commenced profe* lytes to the jewilh religion, they were circumcifed. But, wou'd it be fair to argue from fuch inftances of fl(^«/^-circumcilion, that there were no infants circumcifed? The difference then between us and the Anabaptifts is this. We affert, in conformity to the teftimony of fcripture, that, as the circum- ciling of the parents under the law, gave the chil- dren alfo a title to the feal of the covenant ; the fame covenant-connedion ftill fublifts between believing parents and their infant-feed under the gofpel; but this the Anabaptifts deny — that this new^teftament privilege is founded upon the un- changeablenefs of the Abrahamic covenant, — upon the promifes made to Abraham and his fpiritual feed for ever — upon the nature, lignification, and de- lign of the Jeals of the covenant — upon the renewal and ratification of the covcnant-promifes to Gentiles as w ell as Jews — upon the capability of infants virtually or reprefentatively to enter into covenant with God, notwithrtanding their ^fr/cwj/ incapacity — upon the condud of the Apoltles, who baptized whole houJJiolds — upon the comprc- henfivc charge of Chriji to his Apoftles to dijcipk ALL NATIONS — and upon the fuperiority of the difpenfation of Chriji above that of Mofes. But, in defiance of all thefe powerful argu- ments, the Anabaptiji rejei5ts, oppofes, ridicules infant-baptifm. Whether he has fcripture to fup- port fuch ridicule and oppofition, the pious reader is to judge, from what I have already written. And C 8i ) And that antiquity is no more upon his fide, than fcripture, I hope the fequel will fatisfa6tonly de-^ iiionftratew III. It wou'd exhauft too much thne, anti defeat the original delign of this expoftulatorj|r letter, to quote, minutely, all that the ancient fe^ thers have faid on the fubject of infant-baptifmi efpecially as I am far from refting the 'decifiVe evidence of the'. matter upon ^toV authority, but upon the infallible teftimony of the Scriptures of truth. However, when a cuftom has prevailed for feveral fucceilive centuries j when the perfons who adopted it, were men of un-exceptionable piety J when their authority is corroborated by aii acquaintance with the moft authentic ecclefiaftical records j when the chain of their hiftorical refer*- ences may be 'fairly traced to the co-temporaries of the Apoftles, and the Apoftles themfelves ; and, efpecially, when their opinions on fubjeds of in- finite importance, are upon the whole, of allowed orthodoxy — ^in fuch a cafe, though the authority quoted in favor of a particular rite^ be both falli- ble and Secondary, it may neverthelefs tend' to throw fome light on that which is primary and infaUible. Of this nature, and of this ufe, is the opinion of the primitive fathers ; a few quotations from whofe voluminous writings Will eife<51:ually convince the candid reader, that infaiit-baptifm is of primitive and apoftolic authenticity. L For ( 82 ) Fbr the firft 400 years after the Apoftles, and from that period to the origin of the Waldenfes about the year 1 1 50, the cuftom of admitting in- fants into the vifible church by baptifm, feems to have been univerfal and undifputed. Yet, even fuppoling this ancient rite had been, in later ages, oppofed, as fome imagine; ftill the authority of thofe who florifhed neareft to the Apoftolic ^ra, ought to turn the fcale: for the fame reafon, that thofe, who Uved m or near the glorious ^Era of the Reformation^ .muft be more competent judges of the diftinguilhing doctrines of the Church of Eng- land, than any of our modern innovators, who take all imaginable pains (but without proof) to arminianhe^ arianize, focijiianize, and pelagianize pur venerable Alma Mater. ; J Among the venerable wltneiTes for the con- troverted point, I know none more authentic, than Irenaus. Speaking of Chrifi, he fays, " Om- nes enim venit per femet-ipfum falvare , omnes, inquam qui per eum renafcuntur (baptizantur) in Deiim : in- p ANTES l^ parvulos, ^ pueros, & juvenes, ^ feni- ores. Ideo per omnem 'venit atatem : &* infantibiis hfansfaJius, faji^lificans infantes, &c. He came to fave all perfons by himfelf : All I mean, who by him are regenerated (baptized) unto God : infants and little ones, and children, and young men, and elder perfons. Therefore he went thro' the feveral ages : for infants, being made an infant, fandifying infants, &c." — This primitive father was born in the year after Chriji's nativity 97, and ( 83 ) and 4 years before St. John died. It Was impoffi- ble therefore he cou'd be a ftranger to the Apof- tolic cuftom refpe6\ing baptifm. — Left we fhou'd have a doubt whether Irenaus by regenerating unto God, means baptizing, let us hear his own words; becaufe a man is always the beft commentator upon himfelf. Speaking of the fcripture-tefti- monies concerning the Spirit, he fays, " Potejiatem regenerationis in Deum demandans dicehat eis, &c. When he gave his difciples the commiffion of regenerating unto God, he faid unto them, &c/' Where the commiihon of regenerating lignifies baptizing. — Other fathers ufed the word in the fame fignification. St. Aiiguftin's teftimony is clear. *' Chrijius natus efi ex virgine, renatus per virginem, Chrift was born of a virgin, and born again, or baptized by a virgin ;" that is, John the Baptift, who was in point of celibacy, a virgin, or un- married, I don't much like this playing upon words, even in Auguftin himfelf. But however that is not the point in queftion. It is enough for the prefent argument, that he ufes regenerating and baptizing fynonymoufly, not only in the place juft quoted, but likewife in the title he gives the Apoftles ; calling them " eos per quos renafcimur, thofe by whom we are regenerated" or baptized unto regeneration. But in order to put this matter beyond dif- pute, as well as to eftablifh the controverted fub- jeft, let us hear the teftimony of that blelTed witnefs Jiiftin Martyr, whom 1 have had occalion already 2 It to ( H ) to quote. In his fecond Apology he has thefe words. " They are regenerated in the fame way ©f regeneration, that we were regenerated ; How? \\f Tio v^uli har^ov Tromvlui, they arc walhed with wa- ter, 6cc.** — This quotation, together with that of Jugufiin, proves that the fathers conftantly ufed the word regenerating for baptizing ; and therefore, that in various parts of their writings, where the greek word occurs, it is to be accom- modated in the fame fenfe, that acvoi^Mna-ixoi renewing tnd (puTij-i^oi inlightening very frequently are, 2 The next in order of time after Irenaus is TertuUian. But his teftimony is of a different na^ tijire-, though as full to the prefent argument. This whimlica.l man, fell into ftrange miftakes, and adopted the hserefy of the Montanijis. After foriaking that fed, he eftablillied a party of his own, calling ^is followers after his own name, ^ertullianijis. It is not to be wondered that a perfon. of fuch an extremely verfatil genius, Ihou'd adopt many whimlical ideas on baptifm, as he did upon more important fubje6ts. And that he did, any perfon may fee, who will take the trou- ble to perufe his perplexed thoughts de Baptifmo, As a fpecimen of his oddities, take the following. He advifes baptifm in fome, to be deferred "till marriage. And fpeaking of infariis he fays, " ^id ftftinat inmcem atas ad remijfionem peccatorum? What need their innocent age make fuch hafte, tp the forgivenefs of fms?" This odd queftion, w^iioii Tmells as lirong of the pelagian leaven, as it ( H ) JLt does of nonfinfe, intimates his difapprobation of baptizing infants, becaafe of their fup^ofed gutltlellnefs. So that he would not have them, baptized, till they committed fome a^ual fin j and not even then, 'tiil they were married. And he might as well have gone a little farther, and prohibited baptifm 'till after they were dead. But waving fuch foolhh abfurdities, it is fufhcienl; to our purpofe, that TertuUian's oppofition to in- fant-baptdm, is an implicit proof tiiat it had been the general ufage of the church, from which he departed, -f* Or elfe why did he oppofe it ? 3 Origeuy who imbibed the notion of the Via- tonifts refpe^ting the praeexiftence of fouls, is as clear however on the fubjed of infant-baptifm, as Tertullian is confufed. In his comment on the epiftle to the Rotnans, he adverts to the circum- ftance of a facrifice having been offered for every child that was born under the law, and concludes his obfervations with faying, " Pro hoc ^ ecclefia, ab Apoftolh traditlonem fufcepit etiam parvulis BAPTisMUM dare. For this reafon it was, that the church had from the Apofiles a tradition (or order) to give baptifm even to infants,'* And again ; in his 8th Homily on Levit. xii. he fays, *' Addi his etiam illud poteji ut requiratur quid caufafit, cum baptijma ecclejids in remijjionem pecca- t When any perfon quoted ihe authority of Tertullian upon any fubjedl, it was cultomary to flop his mouth with St. HierOms obl'etvation concerning him, *' Jllum homincm ecdefie nan fuilje ; That m^n did not belong to the church. " t^rum. ( S6 ) forum detur, secundum ecclesije observan"- T I A M , etiam p a r v u l i s baptifmum dari. Belides all this, let it be confidered, what is the reafon, that whereas the baptifm of the church is given for forgivenefs of fins, infants alfo are by the ufage of the church baptized, &c." 4 This teftimony from Origen is fo full and fo cxprefs to the general uf age of the church in baptiz- ing infants, that it does not require a "lingle ad- ditional obfervation to enhance its credibility. However, as fome Anabaptijis have doubted whe- ther this teftimony be genuine ; in order to give a proof of its undoubted authenticity, I will recite for the candid reader, a circumftance, which will elucidate the quotations I have made, and demonftrate at leaft that Origen, notwithftanding fome peculiar fentiments, did acknowledge in- fant-baptifm to be an apoftolic cuftom 5"^. Hieronif who had a univerfal acquaintance with Origen's writings in their original language, fays, that he (Origen) allowed that infants were proper fubjeds of baptifm, as /inner s -, but that he de- nied any derivative guilt from Adam ; and there- fore accounted for their fins by his platonic hypothefis of the praeexiftence of fouls. In allu- fion to which curious notion, St. Hiercm thus ad- dreftes the Felagians^ " If the forgivenefs of the lins, which are another's (Adam's) feem to you Unjuft, or fuch, as one (an infant) incapable of committing a5lual fin, has no need of; then, tran/te ad Amafiumveflrum (Origenem) qui prat e- rita ( 8/ ) rita in ccelis ^ antiqua deliSiafolvi dicit in baptifma, march over to your beloved (Origen) who. fays, that in baptifm are forgiven thofe fins, which were committed in the celeftian regions." It would be foreign to my fubjed, either to attempt here any refutation of Origen's peculiar fentiment, or to vindicate Hierotri's ftridures on him and his nearly-allied brethren, the Pelagians. It is fufficient for the purpofe of the prefent ar-* gument, that Origen, upon the authority of Hierom, did allow the baptizing of infants ; to fupport the propriety of which, he was obliged to fly to the fuppofition of their having finned in a praexiftent fiate, before they were born. Now, as Origen denied original fin, and as infant-bapr tifm was founded upon that do<5lrine ; if that rite had not been eftablijfhed upon the general ufage bf the apofiolic church, and if Origen was not fully convinced of it too j is it not plain, that he would have availed hiaifelf of an opportunity to flip his head out of a noofe, in which he was in- elofed by the very meaning of infant-baptifm, and from which he could not^ with any tolerable grace, extricate himfelf, without adopting the abfurd opinion of the Tlatonijis f Befides, Origen might very eafily have known, whether he had himfelf been baptized in infancy, and whether that had been an apoftolic cuftom. For, as he was born in the year 185, which is the year after the Apoftles 85, and either his Grand-father or Grcat-grand-father muft have lived in the very time t n ) time of the Apoftles; he need only have ap« plied to his own family for information upon the fubje6l. But as he never once mentions fuch a fource of intelligence, and explicitly acknowledg- es the right of infant-baptifm ; his filence in the one cafe, and his acknowledgments in the other, concur to evince the rite to have been of primitive authority, and to prove the more than probable authenticity of the quotations I have made. 5 The next authentic witnefs I Ihall beg leave to produce, is Cyprian. This eminent faint was Bifhop of Carthage. During his refidence at that metropolitical city, one Fidus, a country Bifhop, fent a letter to Cyprian, requeuing his opinion upon two particular points ; one of which was, ■whether an infant might be baptized, before the eighth day. * No lefs than 66 neighboring Bi- ihops happened to lit in council with Cyprian^ at the time that Fidus's letter arrived. Its con- tents were therefore laid before this venerable fynod ; and the unanimous opinion of the gene- ral council was tranfmitted to Fidus, in a trulyw apoftolic letter, which bore the following title. Cypriamis ^ cateri colkgis^ qui in Concilio affuerunt, numero 66, Fido fratri falutem. Cyprian, and the reft of the Bifhops, who were prefent at the Coun- cil, lixty fix in number, to Fidus our brother, fend Greeting, As *■ N. B. The cjueflion was, not whether infants ought to btf -baptized at all, [that was univerfaily allowed, and particularly implied in the very purport of Fidus's inquiry,) but whcihar they (houd be baptized Jooner than the eighth day, becaufe that was the time limited for circnmdfion. ( «9 ) As the epiftle is too copious to admit of atft intire tranfcript, I Ihall therefore content myfei£ with a few extracf^s, full to the point. — " As to the cafe of infants; whereas you judge they are not to be baptized within two or three days after they they were born, &c. we were all of a contrary opinion, and judge that the grace and mercy of Goda.ve not to be denied to any perfoa that is born. For, God, as he accepts no one's per/on, fo not their very foon after t lis period, we hear of them in England. Probably the, i^Tiports were from Holland, a country fertil in haerefy and fchifm. 26 About the year 1536, they were fubdued and difperfed at Munfter and Amjlerdam. And in two years after (lays Fuller m his church- hiftory) " the name of this itdi fii ft appears in our Englijli Chronicles." But their appearance (Was probably earlier; becaufe, in the very year (^536) in which their difperlion took place in Germany, a convocation of the upper and lower houfe in London eftablitlied a proteft againft cheir tenets ; one article of which runs thus, '* Ihe facrament of baptifm is offered unto all; as •"Well infants, as thofe which have the ufe of reafon." — Anc;! even fo early as the year 1533^ yohn Frith, a martyr, wrote a lliort tractate, + This enthufiafl; fet himlelf up as a kind of Chief; and, ill blafphetnous imiration of the Son of God, appointed under him twelve ranting hirelings, whom he called the twelve Apojlks. They prophefied that the end of ihe world was to take place in the year IJ361 and filled people's heads with many other iltange reveries. P intitled^ ( 114 ) intitled, a declaration of baptifm; in which hd fays, *' There is an opinion rilen among fomc, who affirm, that children may not be baptized, "till they come to perfect age. But verily, me- thinks, they are far from the meeknefs of Chriji and his Spirit ; who, when children were brought unto him, received 'em lovingly, &c. — But this matter I will pafs over ; for 1 trufl the Englijh, to whom I write, have no fuch opinions." If this honefl Martyr cou'd have but taken a peep at the ftate of things in the middle of the laft century ; how wou'd he have been af^o- nifhcd at the rapid growth o{ Anahaptifm, under the friendly aufpices of Oliver Cromwell! For a conliderable time, the Anahaptifts were extremely enamored with the canting Ufurper; in whofe levelling caufe numbers of them even took up arms, and were acceflary to the fhedding inno- cent blood. Yet when the tables were turned: when death turned over Oliver to the tribunal of God, to give an account there for his ufur- pation and hypocrify : and when Divine Provi- dence placed upon the throne the rightful heir of the unhappy Monarch, who had been cut oif by the bloody hand of tyranny, independency and ufurpation. — I fay, when matters took this turn ; lo 1 all of a fudden the very perfons who but lately canted to Cromwell, now cant to Charles-, they rake up the allies of the deceafed Ufurper, and ftrew his grave with the fweet flowers of 3j^ anathema, execrating his memory, and in their ( 115 ) their addrefs to the King, calling him " loath- feme Hypocrite, grand Impofior, detejiabie Traytor, treacherous Ufurper, Prodigy of nature, &c. &c." — That Cromwell merited thefe epithets of in- famy, there is no doubt : but, whether they come with any tolerable grace from thofe, who had been fo very lately his fanguinary aflbclates in the " GOOD OLD CAUSE," the judicious reader is to determine. I afk your pardon, Sir, for this little digreffion; which was, in fome meafure, f'uggefted by the thread of my fubjed. I am far from intimat- ing here, that the modern advocates for Ana- .baptifm, are any more like the canting friends of Oliver, than the mad adhaerents of yohn of Leyden ; and I wou'd hope too, that they as cordially execrate the proceedings of the Ufurper, as their forefathers ; who in a poenitential f)t, flyled him the " grand impostor." Yet, permit me to obferve, that the part, which fome take, in vindicating the American rebellion, and oppoling the equitable claims of the Mother- country, favors a little of the " good old CAUSE." And I think, I may fafely affirm that, if the fpirit of rebellious difcord, which now operates fo dreadfully among the provincial male- contents, and is ventilated by a few inflammatory patriots at home, were to arrive at its full me- ridian ; our eyes wou'd foon behold a reftoration of the *' good old cause" of civil and eccle- liaftical ai)archy, republican independency, to- 2 P gether ( ii6 ) gether with all the other fpawn of Olhman ujux'pation. And I cannot help layhig too, that, conlidering the innumerable privileges this land of liberty enjoys, under the aulpices of one of the moft amiable Princes, that ever Iwayed the Britiih fceptre; to alTert any thing, that has a tendency to rob him of his legal prerogative over any branch of his dependent fubjeds, is very ungrateful, to fay nothing worfe ; and there- fore, it wou'd be more becoming in Jome, both, as chrijiians and fuhje^is^ to keep their private opinions, refpeding the prefent troubles, to them- felves; than to be continually fluffing our pubhc papers, with paragraphs, which only add oil to the flame, which burns too vehemently already. Si wn fatis sua sponte infaniunt instiga. — But, to ixturn to my fubjed — I think it mufl: now appear manifeft to every perfon of candor and difcernment, that however Anabaptijm may boaft of Petrobrujian, it cannot, of Britijh anti- quity : lince, before the beginning of the lix^ teenth century, the name was hardly known in E?igland. And, that it has not the fandion of the primitive church, I hope has been made equally evident. I might add too, that Anabap- iifm never had the ufage of any national church for its fupport ; but that, on the contrary, every reformed church throughout Europe admits of infant-baptifm^ IV. Permit ( 117 ) IV. Permit me to afk your opinion, Sir, re^ fpcdiing the arguments I have adopted, and the authorities I have produced, In luppcrt of the controverted point. If you are open to ccvic- tion, and accelfible to truth, I think they in ail I'tagger you a little. At leaft I wo-ild hcpe, they will prove, that your opponents hzvc jlmeihing to fay for themfelves, in favor of infant- baptilni j and that too, on the ground o^ scrip ture, ANTIQUITY and REASON : {o that, altho* we difclaim being infallible, yet we might venture to be as pofitive as you, upon this fubje-fi:. But it is upon folid argument, not on pofitive ajfertions, that we reft the matter. Wall, in the preface to his hlftory of ufunt- baptifm, relates a very remarkable anecdote con- cerning a perfon of diftindion among the A/a- baptijis. The original author of the ft.ry, is Caf- fander. — The refpe6table Anahapti/i, referred to, had imbibed the prejudices of his brethren againft infant-baptifm. However, being a peiun of candor and moderation, he liftened to the ar- guments of the Pc:edobaptij?s. And, when the opinion of the primitive fathers was laid before him, he was fo fvvayed by their united teftimo- nies, that he relinquilhed his former prejudices, and commenced an advocate for infant-baptifm. f^ This happened in him" fays fVall, " becaufe he ( ii8 ) he was endued with three good qualities, i The fear of God, and reverence for his word. 2 Judg- ment and good fenfe. 3 Modefty and a meek temper." After reading this plealing little anecdote, I was ready to fay, Go thou, and do likewife. But a retrofpe(5t to the peremptory fpirit, which lays the foundation of your prejudices flops me from expatiating on the important advice. And I am the more difcouraged in preffing the matter, when I YCiiedi on the never-to-be-forgotten anfiver, which you gave to a friend of mine, when he talked with you on the controverted fubje if any per- fon ibou'd urge, that, although a cellatlon from treafonable hoftiUties was ejfential to the obedient fealty of the fabjed, but not to his future pre- fervation from incenfed jufticej wou'd not every man of common fcnfe laugh at the ridiculous refinement? and fet down the author of it, as a novice, or an enemy to the true intereft of the deluded provincials? I'he application is eafy. Having expofed the weaknefs, fallacy, and abfurdlty of your diftlntlion, permit me to ob- ferve therefore, that to fay, *' adult-dipping is ejfential to the Gbediej2ce of faith, but not to fal- Tation," is exactly the fame as to affert that *' dipping is eflential to falvation, but not to falvation." And now, O profefTor of the gofpel, I turn, from the zealous advocate for the effentiality of dipping, to thee : And, my earneft appeal ad- drelTes your piety, candor, reafon, and common fenfe. Do you not perceive, that Anabaptifm has now fairly thrown alide the mafk, and difcoverec its long-concealed vifage ? Perhaps you thought, (with myfelf) that the gofpel was ftamped on every feature of its face; but if you look nar- rowly, you may ealily difcover the lineaments of legality portrayed there. An Jjiabaptiji mi- nifter publicly declares that *' dipping is ejfential to the obedience of faith." His brethren hear and applaud the declaration: and in the mouth of ( 137 ) bf two or three Anabaptift witnefTes, every word bi the aforefaid declaration has been vindicated and ejiablijhed. I afk then, whether fuch preach- ing does not favor flrongly of that judaizing leaven, which corrupted the gofpel, and fpread a ferment among its abettors, at Galatia. — The legal advocates for circiimcilion, preffed that or- dinance, as ejjential: the Anahaptifls give dipping the fame important title. — The great Apoftle of the Gentiles called the fyftem of the judaizing bigots, another gofpel: and Andbaptifm merits the fame appellation, iince it lays claim to ejfentiality. — If Faul were now alive, he wou'd addrefs the Anabaptijis, as once he did the Galatian bigots, " If ye be circumcijed (dipped) Chrift iliall profit you nothing." q. d. If ye fubmit to dipping, and efteem it an effential in obedient faith, ye Ihall receive no benefit from the righteoufaefs or Spi- rit of Chrifl), becaufe, " in Chrift Jejus, neither circumcilion availeth any thing, nor uncircum- cifion, (but the grand effential) faith, which worketh by love." — No wonder that Anabaptifts inlift on dipping: the fecret is unravelled; dip- ping's an ejfential. And no wonder if fuch an effential topic conftitute an effential part of Ana- baptift minifters difcourfes. — O profeffor, beware of fuch preaching. If you do not look limply to Chri/i, and fearch his word, your foul will be enfnared. If your confcience is alarmed with the law, and galled with the fcnft of guilt, you ■Vvill be ready to catch at any thing, that might S give ( 13^ ) give It peace: And If you are told that " dipping is an ejfe?itial,'* the legal bias of your heart will fuck, in the poifonj your wounds will be healed flightly; your peace will be a falle onej your fpirit, inilead of being thrown into a gofpcl mould, will imbibe that four bigotry, which is the diftinguilhing charafleriftic of a party ; and, if you reft in dipping, without having previoufly obtained that fweet reft, v/hich obedient faith communicates, you may fettle upon your lees, become twice dead, and at laft be plucked up by the roots, as' a rotten blafted fig-tree. — If you are one of thofe, who think, it their duty to be dipped, 1 have no objection to the fpeedy removal of your fcruples on that head. Only take care that the " luatery grave'^ does not give you coldi does not deftroy the fimplicity and warmth of your heart, now glowing perhaps with the love of Chriji. If you are not in Chrifty you may go to the bath, and go to hell too : All the water in Jordan, or in the Ocean, wilt not fave you from deftru(?tion, if your heart be not walbed from an evil confcience by the blood of fprinkling. — If you have been baptized in in- fancy, liften to no propofals on the fubjecfl of re-baptlfm. Did you ever read of an individual under the law, that was circumclfed a fecond time, though admitted to that rite in Infancy? The Anahaptijis, like the judaizing teachers, want to dip you, that they might glory in your flejh. And when once they do, depend upon it, they will ( 139 ) will make it a point that you fl\ou'd communicate with them only. And will you thus refign your chriftian freedom, and bury your glorious -liberty in the Anabaptifi' s " ivatery grave?" O profefTor, ftand upon your gu,ard. Be vigilant : Watch againft Satan, efpecially when he transforms him- felf into an angel of light. And, left you fhou'd take either a legal or an antinomian nap in your important poft on the chriftian watch-tower, take the following v/atch-word, bind it about your neck, and write it on the tables of your heart, viz; " He is not a Jew (nor a Chriftian) which is one outwardly, neither is that (the true) cir- cumcifion" (or the true baptifm) " which is out- ward in ihejlejh: but he is a Jew" (or a Chriftian) *' which is one inwardly : and circumcilion is that of the heart, iji the fpirit, and not in the letter; whofe pi'aife is not of men, but of God.'* Rom. ii. 28, 29. 1 now turn, from the un-wary, the un-eftab- lifhed or the legal profeftbr, to you. Sir, Per- haps you will think my laft addrefs was too fevere. It was feverity founded on fcriptural truth, and warranted by ftubborn fads; and therefore requires no apology. — But I haften to a conclulion. Throughout this pamphlet I have taken fre- quent opportunities to make honorable mention of the eftablilhed church. Yet I am not fo far under the influence of partiality or bigotry, as to fuppofe, Ihe is infallible. This is the pompous cha- 2 S ra6teriftic ( HO ) raaeriftic of that anti-chriftian church which proudly boafts It cannot err. And, if any other church be perfedly free from fpots, it is wel- come to calt the iirft ftone at ours. Confider- ing, out of what a horrible liate of popilh and heathenilh darknefs our church arofe, the mat- ter of aftonilhment is, not, that Ihe has any ipots, but that Ihe has not many more. She had lien amojig the pots — in a ftate of accumulated guilt and abominable fuperftitlon in myftic 5a- iylon', till the light oi reformation penetrated the Egyptian gloom, and the hand of almighty grace extricated her from her bondage. Since that glorious period, fhe hath fhone bright as the wings of the dove, whofe wings are covered with iilver, and her feathers with gold; and though the robe of truth, with which Ihe Is adorned, be here and there a little fuUied with the flight remains of that darknefs, from whence fhe emerg- ed ; yet this no more really afTe^ls her facred vefture^ than a it"^ fpots of dirt wou'd take from the rlchnefs of a garment of embroidery, or a flight blemlfh deform a well-proportioned fet of features. What I call fpt% in our church, might be more properly ftyled redundant appen- dages : which, like the fringes on the Ifraelites' garments, are as far from being ornamental, as they are from being really ufeful; and yet which do not in the leafl: detra6l from the purity of that bright reformation-robe, wherewith our ve- nerable JIma Mater is arrayed. When ( 141 ) When therefoveyou take a view of our excellent church, let it not be through the magnifying glafs of party-prejudice, but through the amiable optic oftendernefs and love. Then you wijl Be to her faults a little hlin^I, And to her virtues very kind. Confident I am, Sir, that although you, and 3.11 the Anabaptifts in the world, unite in branding the fer vices of our church with the odious ftigm?, of " airfed tradJticv.s ;" yet God will blefs them. And the judicious fons of the eftabUlTiment no more dread the influence of a curje, either upon themfelves or their miniftrations, from a bigoted. Anabaptlft-teacher ; than Luther of old regarded the futil anathema of a bigoted Pope's bull, when he called it " bulla, vere bullarum fill a T * That God, who hath blejjed our excellent church in old time, ftill continues his blefling ; and will continue it, 1 truft, as long as the fun and moon endure. Various efforts have Rome and Satan made to crulh her to nothing ; yet fhe has always rifen fuperior to their confederate alTaults, and, like the palm- tree, hath florilhed the more for prejfure. Al- though llie was caft into the fcorching flames of Marian perfecution ; yet, like another phoenix, ex SEIPSA RENAsciTUR, fhe acquired life from the Are, and emerged from the martyrial ajhes, brighter and more glorious. Even the " academic death'* \3,s proved eventual life ; and given birth to nu^ * A bull, the very daughter of all vain bubbles. ( 142 ) nierous living witnefles. So that, when our church has been wounded by the hand of perfecution, God hath come down upon her v/ith his bleffing, like rain upon the mown grafs, and made her fpring the more rapidiv, after the mowings of the perfe- cuting fey the. Even in thefe prefent days of blaf- phemy and reproach, her interefts florilh. The number of her eccleliaftical and truly-evangelical fons is amazingly multiplied. May their zeal and fuccefs incrcafe with their multiplication ! May the Lord God of hofts go forth with them, when they go forth againft the common enemy ! May the great Captain of our falvation endue them with undaunted refolution in the caufe of God and truth ! May they be made polifhed Ihafts in Jehovah's quiver ! And may the arms of their hands be made ftrong by the almighty God of yacob ! May their minifterial rod^ bloiibm, and bring forth much fruit ! May they be burning and Ihining lights ! burning with inextinguifliable zeal in their great Mafter's caufe, andjliining with the diifulive light of doctrinal and pradicai truth ! When they are fometimes bowed down with the greatnefs of their work ; may they be reanimated with the greatnefs of their reward ! And, whether •they blow the gofpel-trump, in the high-ways and hedges ; or feed the flock of CkriJ^ in a more con- fined fphere of a61ion; whether they are itinerant evangelifts, or local paftors ; may the Lord God ■Omnipotent preferve them as Jiars in his right hand, from the evil of fin, and the delulions of error \ ( M-3 ) error ! Yea whether they are diftingtiiflied by the name of Churchman or Dijfenter ; may the blelFing of the God of Abraham follow them, as far as they follow Chrifl ! And make them an embodied phalanx againft the ftrong- holds of Satan ! Give them thy ftrength, thou God of pow'r ; Then let men rage, or devils roar : Thy faithful witnefles they'll be: 'Tis fix'd — they can do ail through Thee. Such, Sir, are the genuine ejaculations of a heart, deeply interefted in the welfare of our Britijh Zion ; and yet expanded in benevolent and catholic love to you, and to all, throughout the world, who love the Lord Jcfus Ckriji in lincerity. My heart's delire and prayer to God is, that the interefts of the gofpei may be uni- verfally extenfive; without regarding who are the highly -favored inftruments in its propagation. Whoever the men are, or by whatever name they may be diftinguiihed, if they urge obedient faith, they fhall be mott heartily welcome to my right hand of cordial fellowjhlp. Eut if you, or any perfon elfe, quantusquantus Jit, attempt to aggrandize difputed ceremonies into ejfentials -, I ihall think it as much my duty to oppofe you, as ever Faul did, the judaizing difturbers of the' church of Galatia. In order then that a minifter's public work may be really ufeful to the church, and accep- table to God ; wou'd it not be well to conlider and digeft, out of inany, the few following par- ticulars? ( 144 ) ticulars ? (i) Shou'd not the glory of God in the promulgation of the gofpel, be a minifter's' grand, primary objefl:? (2) Next to the divine glory, fhou'd he no^ Jirincipally regard the falvation of loft fouls, without fquinting at a bigoted pi'ofelytifm to his own party ? (3) Shou'd not the great aim of his public difcourfes, and private demeanor, be, to humble the Jinner, exalt the Saviour, and promote hoUnefs f And is not every other topic compared with this, trivial, inferior, and non-effential? (4) Is it not incumbent upon every well- willier to the profperity of Zion, to pull down^ as far as may be, the partition- walls of bigotry, and ceremonial attachment, by urging the great truth of the poet, in the following flriking^ appeal ? Ye diff'ring fscts, who all declare, *' Lo! here is Chriftj or lo ! he's there \* Your ftrcfnj^er proofs divinely give, And fhevv me where the chriftians live. (5) Shou'd not every embalTador of the I^rince of peace, copy after that pacific original, in word and deed ? Shou'd not every minifter preach fexxce, (efpecially during the prefent troubles)' both in a civil and religious point of view ? by recommending tn all, to " render unto Cafar the things that are C^efars; and unto God, the things that are God's?" (6) Ought ( i45 ) (6) Ought not every friend In the caufe of triulij to brandilh the weapons of his warfare againft JtnP as that monfter is always at the bottom of national wars and fightings, as well as the primum viobile in every private broil. Would not Anabaptift- minifters therefore be better employed in attack- ing fin, than in publifhing pamphlets, which have an indirect tendency to increafe the workings of that bydra, in the multifarious rebellion of refilcfs Americans ? And wou'd not you, Sir, have done more fervice to the caufe of truth, if, inftead of' ridiculing thofe who differ from you on the fut^-^ je6l of infant-baptifm, you had, ' On Dice your humorous vein difplay'd ? ^^^^ The lins of the world in general, and of flie' church in particular, might afford you an ample field to expatiate in : and it is hard to tell, whether the follies of the one merit more Democritus's face- tious fneers, than the fins of the other require Beraditus's lamenting tears. I'm fure. Sir, the divided lituation of your own party in this town, called aloud for the tears both of the tender-hearted philofopher, and the weeping prophet: : while that accurfed fpirit of bitternefs which has rent " the church" here, and fubdivided It in fiich a manner, that the member of one fubdlvifion will hardlv fpeak to a member of the other, if he meet him ip the ftreet, demands a cutting reproof O Sir, ho^r much more ejfential to the obedence of faith hi}^ k^^P ihe unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, ■ ■: T than C 146 ) than to be dipt ! Is it not to be feared that if th^ religion of fome bitter difciples were ftript of its fiery zeal for an unfelt fyftem of dodrines, and for the unimportant ceremony of dippijig, it wou'd be i^ript of its great all ? And that the- zealots them- felves wou'd appear as naked as unbaptized hea- thens ? O Sir, if you knew this town, even the profejjing part of it, as well as others ;-^how much religious goffiping prevails, inftead of chriftian fellowlbip i-T-what perpetHal tattling, whifpering, canting, whining, fupply the place of religious converfation ; — ^how exceedingly inquilitive cer- tain bufy-bodies are into the domeliic and fpiri- tual affairs of others, while they too glaringly negle(^an examination of their own hearts; — ho\y boldly fome will even fabricate a clandeftine \yt, and tiaat, in order to fqw the feeds of diflenliori between intimate friends ;-— with what mifchicr vous ilynefs, thefe religious incendiaries can carry about g, budget of fallboods and mifreprefenta- tions; and hoj^ 4exteroufly they can open its contents, even though it be like" Pandora's box i —and with what effrontery they can fhew them- ielves at our religious aflemblies, in a mafk, that cannot conceal their deformity, even from the eye of man;— with what curiofity they en? quire into every body's ftate, but their own j-rr how ready to magnify the peccadillos of another, ivhile they advert not to their own monftrous inconfiftencies J — and by what artful machinations ihefe Religious ^rebrands labor to fet ^he church ( 147 ) In a flame ; — I fay, Sir, if you were acquainted with thefe particulars j I am fure, inftead of urging immerlion as eflential to the obedience of faith, ypu wou'd have called aloud to S n profeflbrs, to walk even as Ghrifi alfo walked; In. humility, tendernefs, truth, and love. Praying that you may fight the good fight pf obedient faith, and finilh your minifterial courfe with exceeding great joy and extenfive fucceiss I remain. Your affe(5^ionate brother and humble adhaerent to " one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM:'* j?5lthF^^. 1776,1 *^* ^' J^ L;^ (j\ lii Er; R R. A T A. P* 22, £..1, Foj:7^r77zo;z5 read fermon. P. 24, L. I, For eovenant read covenant. 41 /L. 28, For honour read /?o«or. . 66, L. 27, For anabahtiji read andbapift. P. 95, Penult, For cofuetudo read confuetudo. R D T O PARMENAS: Occalioned by his *' Addrefs to the Baptift-ChurcW Meeting in High-Jireet, Shrewsbury." '• " ' " " '■' ' Ex quovis ligno Mercurius non fit^ Shrewsbury, Printed. 1776, A W o R D to Parmmas. ■ — — - -■ • • \•^l^t >lt II BEFORE the conclufive part of my LHter fa a Baptiji Minijier, &c. was printed ofF,l fent a friendly line to Mr. P. a member of the Anabaptifts in this town, requefting he would inform me, whether Mr. M. faid that " adult immerfion is fjfential to the obedience of faith j'* at the fame time ingenuoufly acquainting him; that I had in the prefs, a treatife on the fcrip* ture-ground of infant-baptifm, and that therein *' I took the liberty to animadvert on the fen* timents of the Anabaptifts in general, and of Mr. M. in particular j'* but wifhed, before I concluded my pamphlet, to know from Mr. P. whether Mr. M. did really ufe the above-men- tioned firong expreffion. My inquiry was ar** fwered in the affirmative j and Mr. M.'s unfcrip- tural declaration, refpe^ling the €j]entiality cii dipping, has been fince vindicated and confirmed by another Anabaptift-minifter. The ingenuous and friendly letter I fent Mr. P. immediately produced a hafty, un-digefted little performance, intitled, ** An Addrefs to the Members of the Baptiji-Church, meeting in Righ-Jireety Shrewf- hury," The manufcript of this futil publication 2 A was ( 4 ) was" written not only .before my pamphlet \yas out. But even before an advertifement was inferted in the Shrew/bury paper to announce its future publication. This is a fample of Mr. Pdr?ne?ias's precipitation; and this circumftance will ferve ^o .convince the candid reader, how peculiarly touchy and inflammable the mind of an Ana- baptift is, when even a diftant and un-publijhed oppoiition to.his favorite tenet, will produce fucli precipitate. conduit. As Mr. Tarmenas atfec5ls to xinderftand latin-y before he ever honors " the church" with a fecond addrefs. I wou'd advife him to digeft well the following concile motto, *' Fejiina lentil' or that of the Apoftle, *' Be/oiw to fpeak." But what will excite the aftoniJliment, (and perhaps the rifiblhty too) of the candid reader, is; the addrefs referred to, was read publicly by Mr. 5". on the next Sunday evening in the Ana- )Daptift-meeting, The manifefi delign of this was to guard the people againft the effects of my -vindication of infant-baptifm, and to convey a fort of intimation that they fliould not read it. But does not fuch conduit favor too ftroqgly of |he;Uhfair methods adopted by a certain eroneous church, whofe grand intereft it is to keep hef deluded members in profound ignorance,. by pro hibiting a perufal of any books, calculated to refcue them from their, fuperftitious bigotry ? And { afk too, is it right for the Anabaptifts to -b? .fpntinually introducing every little contro- tf.7 ( 5 ) verfial occurrence into the pulpit? And thus to eon\^ began the public maligning of the Pcedobap- tifts, he muft confequently be the firft maligner. Thus, while P. makes us the objeds of his pity and prayers, I fhall, in return, fincerely com- miferate his equal want of argument and candor, and pray, that a future abatement of his pre- cipitate zeal, may induce him to fix his charge of maligning, Jlandering, &c. fome where elfe. P.. has aped the motto of my title-page : The firft page of my letter prefents the reader with two fweet verfes from Dr. Watts, in which that excellent Divine bears his teftlmony to the right ef infant-bap tifm, as founded upon the Abrahamic covenant. P. quotes two verfes more from the fame evangelic Poet, which contain a verfification of Rom. vi. 3, 4. Now, as it is upon this fcrip- ture, that the Anabaptifis chiefly found their plea for dipping-, does not the quotation from Dr. Watti carry with it a kind of" infinuation, that he ( 8 ) ht was an advocate for the Anabaptift's " watef-i grave f" Whereas it is well known, that the Do61or himfelf, and the whole refpedable body of Dif- fenters, in which he Ihone as an ornament of dlftinguilhed luflre, always invariably admitted infant-baptifm, and that too by alfulion or fprinkling. And does not P.'s attempt to con- traft Dr. Watts to himfelf by imitating my title- page, imply fomething very unamiable, and re- mind us of the Poet's exclamation, " 0 / imita- res, fervum pecus !" And, fince the Do6lor is an explicit advocate for infant-baptifm, and, accord- ing to P.'s mode of arguing, a virtual " maligner^ of Anabaptifm ; ought not '* the church, meeting in High-Jireet, Shrew/bury," to difcard the Dodlor's hymn-book, for the fame reafon, that they will labor to prohibit their members from reading^ my Vindication ? The author of the addrefs adopts one argu-^ ment, fuch as it is, in favor of adult-immerfion^ viz : " the teftimony of good men in all ages, who have withftpod, and fleered clear of thd general corruption"-^nothing* The clofe of the fentence is neither fenfe nor grammar. But the judicious reader may perceive what this ** incor- re^ addrefs" wou'd be at. The author of it viodeftly inlinuates, (i.) that all the " good men\ in former and latter days were Anahaptijis ; (2) that fuch as were not, did not " fteer clear of the general corruption." (3) And that if it were not for " fear, lliamq, private coioluments, or the ihacklcs ( 9 ) iliackles of hiiman creeds and articles, they wou'd not be kept back from the performance of that duty, requilite to evidence an obedient faith.' Satis cum imperiol In oppolition to all this im- mbdeft and groundlefs cant, I reply j that, if any one will take the trouble carefully to perufe my Vindication, he will immediately perceive that the Fathers for the four firft centuries after the Apoftolic ^ra ; all the parties engaged in the pelagian controverfy, which commenced the beginning of the fifth century, including Auguftin on the one lide, and Vdagius on the other j all the Fathers, Councils, Minifters, and ProfefTors of Chriftianity, from the pelagian period, to the beginning of the twelfth century ; the body of the illuftrious JValdenfes j the infiruments of the Reformation in Germany, with Luther and Calvin at their head ; all the Reformers in Great-Britain i and all the national reformed churches in Europe* ■ — I fay, any perfon may perceive from my pam- phlet, that all thefe venerable authorities were unanimous in admitting infant-bap tifm, and a$ free from the " general corruption" as any Ana- baptifts that ever lived. But on the contrary, I have proved, that Anabaptifm, fo far from " fleering clear of the general corruption^'' has, at different periods, failed plump into the dread- ful Charybdis, And if Mr. P. would only confult ccclefiaftical hiftory a little, he wou'd abate fome what of his confidence; and find, that no mif- crcantts upon earth were ever more effe<5^ually fi deluged ( lo ) in the " general corruption" of impiety, ranterifm and rebellion, than the Anabaptilts In Calviu's days ; numbers of whom, with mad 'John of Leyden at their head, committed great outrages at Munjier, Amjierdam, &c. And if any one will read the hiftory of Cromwell's ufurpation, he will iind, that during the bleffed reign of the rump, the ^^ general corruption' of bloody independency, reigned as ftrongly among the Anabaptifls, as among any of the Ufurper's adhaerents. Although, P. acknowledges his ••' addrefs is- incorre^," yet as it is " the Lord's work to open blind eyes," he therefore ob.ferves that " he fome- tiiiies does it by means very unlikely to anfwer the end." Here is another modeft inlinuation, that the advocates for infant-baptifm are blind. — ; Well, if P.'s addrefs Ihou'd be made the intlru- ment of opening any of our eyes, it wou'd be an illuf^rious phcenomenon indeed. I mufl fay how- , ever, that I never perufed a publication in my "whole life, more unlikely to anfwer the deiired end of making us all Anabaptif^s. For, beiides the grammatical inaccuracies of the addrefs, there does not appear the JJiadow of an argument throughout the whole. Confidering then Parme- ?ids*s total difqualification for the important work of vindicating Anabaptifm ; and that the caufe of " the church" is lefs likely to futfer from his Jiience than his publications j he had better m future, call in fome, whom he is pleafed to flyle " (ible advocates," and to confine his animad- , verfions ( u ) v-crllons to tlie narrow limits of his own fire^ fide. Sii}cc 'P. is fond of a latin fentence, 1 wilt prefent him with one very appolite to my prefent pbfcrvations, Trat^ent fua fabriliafabri. Parmenas plight thine behind a counter ; might cut a tole- rable figure in fabricating an important rebus for a news-paper ; or in penning, a pretty little panegyric on the excellencies of Maria : but I cannot conceive he can ever appear to ad- vantage in forming addreffes to " the church ;" efpecially when he aiTumes the lignature of Far- menas ; a greek word, which, in all probability, the alllimer of it does not underftand. If any of the " able advocates," to whom P. refers, Ihou'd fland forth in vindication of Ana- baptifm, I hope they will not attempt to reft the matter upon declamatory florifh, or a fuper- ficial " addrefs to the church ;" much lefs upon a pompous peremptory title, fuch as ufhered into the field of controverfy, an inconcluiive performance of Dr. Gill's, intitled, " Infant-bap- tijm the main pillar of Popery.'' I am certain the Dociior, with all his rabbinical learning, never proved that point; and I defy any fucceffor of his to prove it now. And I think I might with more propriety fiyle Anabaptifm the main pillar of Bigotry, than the excellent (tho' in this refped miflaken) Dodor cou'd affix a Popilh fligma, to what can be proved to be of primitive, fcriptural, and proteltant authenticity. If then any of the ^' able advocates" will give us folid argument, inftead ( 12 ) Inftead of pofitive affirmations, 1 fhall read theni with pleafure, and* (perhaps) anfwer them at my leifure. In the mean time, I wilh P* and all his brethren, the one Baptijm, 5th Mzr. 1776.3 •*^* •^* THE REJOINDER: PRINCIPALLY CONTAINING I. Some defenlive pleas for the Inftitutions and Minifters of the Church of England, illiberally afperfed in two pamphlets lately publillied by Mr. Samuel Medley, of Liverpool, and Mr. James Turner, of Birmingham, II. A more particular refutation of Mr. Medley's faife do(?trine of the essentiality of dippings III. The fcriptural mode of adminlftering 5<3/)^//};z, by POURING or sprinkling of water, farther vindicated, from the moft capital obje(?tions of Dr. Stennett, and the other two Anabap- tijls afore fa id. By the Rev. RICHARD De COURCY ; Vicar of St. Alkmond's, Shrewsbury. " Res ipsa lapttfinl eft aspersio fanguhiis Jefu Chrifii in reniiJJJcnem <• peccalorum; qu£ vehit oculis noftris fubjicitur extern x: aspersionis //^no." Beza. •* I readily allow that the word (haptize) does not neceJJarUy imply ^' a total immerlion. Let the word relate to a part of the body, I " ASK. NO MOKE." Dr. Gale, the Anahaptift. Part I. SHREWSBURY: 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 TowTiand Country.. M, DCCjLXXVII, N. B. My anfwer to Mr. lurner, begins at Chap. viii. If the candid reader will take the trouble to look over P. 316 322, he may, for once, have a fair opportunity, from fome extra6^s colledled, there, out of Mr. T.'s pamphlet, to fee the genuine features of a certain warm phaeno- menon, which, I think, John Bunyan diftinguilhes by the name of *' the red-hot Anabaptifi.'* The extra6ls are really curious, and worthy a perufal. PREFACE. r\HERE are three things, for which I requeft the indulgence of the candid reader, i / hope he will pardon me, for anfwering Mejf. Sandys and Parnicnas only in a curfory manner, Thefc two writers (writers! did I call them?) have fuck a cafi peculiar to t he mf elves, and arefo dijiinguijhable by the groveling meanncjs of th ir ideas, as well as their happy talent at perianal inve^ive, that, to anfwer them fully, in their ownfiyle, would he to recriminate by fcolding. Omitting, therefore, a huge quantity of Mr. S.'^ pedantic Jcraps of Latin and Greek, and of his and P.'j abujive fquibs . I have confidered the moji material parts in both their performances, as they were fuggeji" ed by the thread of my introdudlon, and the references of my notes. / thought this would be a more eligible mode of linking together thefe twin-dlfputants, than to give them a ferious or methodical reply. 2 As 1 found my f elf under a necejjity of giving a little hijhric Jketch of the origin and progrefs of the prefent controverfy, I have alfo been obliged to recapitu- late fome particulars, which I 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 occafioned through the very nature of the fubjed. For, ivhen new fads fiart up, that have a re- ference to old ones, the former cannot be well related A 2 withQUt: IV. PREFACE. iv'tthouf an introduSiion cf the latter; and an accurate Tiarrati've cannot be formed^ without Jhewing the cir- cumjianftial 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/landing fome particulars, which relate to my-, /elf and my brethren in controverfy. 3 It requires fome apology to my readers, that I have introduced the name of Dr, Stennett, in the courje cf my remarks. In takijig that liberty, I mean not to infinuate, that thert fuhfifts the fmalleji rcfemblance be- between the fpirit and ftyle of this pious and polite writer, and thofe of mv opponents. Their refpeSiive performances exhibit a firiking contrajl. But, as Mr, Medley is apparently a rambling and inconclufive rea- finer, I have introduced Dr. S.^s more powerful argu- ments, as afupplyfor Mr. Ws great deficiency. INTRO- INTRODUCTION. IT Is with the utmoft relu6lancc, I again take up my pen, as a controvertift. Were I to indulge the natural inclination of my heart, I fhould totally abftra6l myfelf from every brancli of polemic divinity; and, fhould chufe rather to glide filently along, in the placid flream of paro- chial obfcurity, * than enter the troubled waters of controverfial debate ; where difputants, like fhips in a ftorm, too violently dalh 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 bufinefs of a controvertift and the fpirit of a true chriftian are by no means incompatible. One of the moft eminent chriftians, and greateft apoftles, that ever lived, was alfo one of the wifeft and moft earneil difputants. Who ever brandilhed the controverfial fword in the caufe of truth, with greater firmnefs or fuccefs, than the great apoftle of the Gentiles? yet, who ever fhone a more illuftrious ornament to chrifiianity ? But what need I adduce the example of faiil of Tarfus, when the great Apoftle and Hlgh- prieft of our profeffion himfelf, condefcended to grace the field of controverfy wdth his prefcnce ? * — — Bene qui htuit, len; vb:it , Ovid. Of vl. INTRODUCTION. Of what did our blelTed Lord's interviews, with the difputatious Scribes and Pharifees frequently coniil^, but of a controversial chain of inimitable argumentation? With what wifdom did he anfwer their objedions ! What pains did he take to re- move their prejudices! With what invincible firm- iiefs, plainnefs of fpeech, and cogency of reafon-' ing, did he controvert their moft favorite hypo thcTes ! How effectually did he filence their cavils, and refute their fpecious fophiilry ! And, while this divine Philanthropic was influenced by the moft ardent atfeiffion to the fouls of his opponents, yet with what feverity does he hew in pieces every ^^i:g 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 he d the edge of our Lord's controverfy with the caviling jezvs, tended likewife to give it a proportionate keennefs, penetration, and importance. As, there- fore, we are indebted to controverfy, as an even- tual caufc, for fome of the moft celebrated wri- tings of that evangelic cafuift, St. Paul-y {o, we mult 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 man fpake." Nor has controverfy been without its ufe in later ages. What important effccfs it produced in our land, to the dete^iion of error, and difleminalion of truth, let the writings of the illuftrious iVickUff teilify ; whofe controverlial attack upon the popu- lar errors o{ Rome^ firft rent the veil of darknefs that INTRODUCTION. vii. that covered the eftablilhed church here, and ad- mitted that dawn of truth, which, by a gradual and diffufive lUumination, fpread far and wide throughout the continent, under the inftrumen- tality of John Hufs, Jirom of Prague. Luther, Cal- vin, &c. and at laft arrived at a bielTed meridian, during the propitious reigns of our Engiijh Jofiah, King Edward VI. and our Britijli Deborah, Queen Elizabeth; through the united labors of our emi- nent Reformers, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hoop- tr^ &c. The flarting of error has always given room for the more vigorous difplay of truth : This has a- wakened controverfy; and the reciprocal attacks of controvertifts, like the coliiiion of the fteel and flint, have tended to extradl: the latent fparks of truth, and to difplay their luftre the more abun- dantly. And, although the fparks, wdiich iiTue from controverfial col lilions. havefometimes, thrg* 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 againft all ufe of fire. — Religious controverfy is a guard of revelation ; whofe double office is, to a6t otFen- lively in the refiftence of error, and defenlively, in the vindication of truth. The weapons of her warfare are, fcripture and reafon; which conftitute a fort of two-edged fword, that cuts in pieces eve- ry unfcriptural and irrational hypothecs. But, when pofitive affertions or dogmatic injunctions are fubftituted in the room of right reafon, and fomc vIII. INTRODUCTION. • fome dif-jolnted or mif-applied texts arc made to uiurp the place of the analogy of faith, and fcrip- tural argumentation ; it ceales to be a wonder, that fuch fuppolitious artillery, in the hands of ignorance and bigotry, lliould be attended with the moil: mifchievous confcquences to the church oi Chrift ; that warm bigots fliould be induced to unchurch and even unchriftian their diifering bre- thren ; and that a favorite ceremony Ihould be ilignified with a Ihus faith the Lord, when its ge-. Ruine fanclion is nothing more than T^hus faith Bigotry. But thus an old obfervation is verified. In nomine DcfJiiiii incipit omne malum. In the management of religious controverfy, there are a few conliderations, v/hich feem to me of real importance, i The caufe of God and the eflablilliment of truth are fo intimxately allied, that, whatever injures the one, mufi: neceffarily affect the other j and every controvertif}-, who would wljli to ftrcngthen the combination of interefls between both, ought to have a lingle eye to the glory of God, and a zealous concern for the honor of truth. 2 When controverfy has religion for its fubjecl:, and the vindication of truth for its obje<51, it ought, confequently, to take the facred fcriptures for its guide. Thefe Ibould be the divine arfenal, from whence it fhould borrow its principal artillery; thefc, the rich mines, where truth Ibould be in- veiiigated, and from whence the precious jewel fhould be dug; and thefe, the infallible judges, that Ihoiild end every controverlial firlfe. 3 ^^^-^ INTRODUCTION. ix. 0^ But, as fcripture is the beft interpreter of fcripture, we are no more to take it detached from itfelf, than to make it the /i^c^^^fy of corrupt rea- fon. Therefore, in proving any point from the word of God, where the fubjed is either ob/curely, or not exprejly revealed, our conclulions iLouId be determined by the general tenor of fcripture, or by the connexion of one truth with another. 4 In order to invefiigate truth aright, we lliould labor to fhake off all thofe prepollellions, which flow from a party-fpirit; to relinquifh every pre- judice, conneiled with a particular mode of edu- cation ; and to be acceffible to the hght of truth, though it difcover the weaknefs of even a favorite hypothelis. 5 In urging any truth, which, in its confe- quences, dependencies, or application, may bear hard upon an opponent, the utmofi: care lliould be taken to preferve a diftindlion 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 chriiHan charity and ten- der benevolence towards the other, lliis rational and fcriptural difi:in6lion will fave from timid fub- miffion on the one hand, and from uncharitable bigotry, on the other; and will make religious controverfy, a happy blending of truth and love. 6 In the application of any particular truth, it niould be argumentum ad hominem, no farther, than as it has a reference to the main queftion in de- bate. Without attending to this, controvertifts fometimes load their produdions with fuch imper- B tinent X. INTRODUCTION. tinent trifles, as merit no reply ; and with fuch heterogeneous fluff, as no judicious reader will think worthy of a ferious perufal. 'f' 7 Though fome truths are not of equal im- portance wich others, they are not therefore to- be accounted abfolutely indiiferent. Every por- tion of truth is precious or important, in propor- tion to its connexion with the grand fundamentals of chriftianity. And, though there are. fome truths, which neither conftitute, nor are immedi- ately connedled with the foundation of the gofpel r yet, coniidering them, as pofieffing 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 publifhed at Shrewjhun . The author of this anabaptiftic farrago, is one Mr. Sandys; who, though but a Probationer for the Miniftry, yet writes in a ftyle as pompous as that of an Archbifliop. This gentleman has thought proper to (lyle his pamphlet " More Work for the Vicar of St. Alk- moncl's." Confidering the pompofity of the title, and the fpace of time the author cxhaufted in fabricating his performance, as well as the long previous notice Parmenas gave us of its future publication, I really thought we fliould have fomething great. Recollecting, that one of Mr. Toplady's controvcrfial trac'tates, v>^as intitled " More Work, &c."my cxpetStations were prodigioufly raifed by this Jinularity of titles. But, ex pede Hercnlou. I could difcover the footfteps of the eminent Vicar of Broad Hembury, no farther, than in the title-page of his poor imitator. All befide, was vo.x & prxterca nihil. When Mr. S. is pleafed to ftyle his pamphlet " More irork;'" 1 acknowledge the propriety of his title. Tt is more poor work indeed! fuch as has liitherto been the offspring of his brother in learning andpolitenefs, good Mr. Parmenas the Deacon. — It is work! Opus, PUERiLiBus himieris formidiUidum ! The prodigious mul^ titude of Latin and Greek excerpts, Avith which this bit of genuine pedantry is overftockcd, would atlbrd tremendous ivork indeed, to a f'chool-hoy \ while an intimation of the delicate phrafeology, might even ihock the abilities of ihofe who live within the purlieus of BilliKglgatc. And if Mr. S. will only ranfack all the Spe&alors, Tatkrs, Guardians, &c. and collecSi together another good large budget of mottos ; and if, as heretofore, he will fiiperadd to this incoherent mafs, a little more pcr- Ibnal invedtive, he may then publifli again, and very properly intitle his learned publication, " Merc chifivc Wcrk for the Vicar of St. Aikmond's!" word INTRODUCTION. xl. word of God; as declarative, either exprelTly or implicitly, of the will of the great Legiflator j as including in their application, certain benefits, privileges, and advantages, to the vilible church ofChrii-l; as bearing fome diftantial, fymbolicai reference to the covenant of grace ; as preferving a lignificant commemoration of the mofi: impor- tant blellings; and as fealing, to the people of God, by a facramentary ratification, the great re-r demption of the Lord Jesus Christ; — I fay, confidering certain inferior truths in thefe feveral points of view, as they ftand even dijiantially re- lated to other more important ones, they feem to drop their unimportance, and to demand our mofl: ferious fubmiffion. In this light I look upon the facraments in ge- neral, and injant-baptifm in particular. Far be it .from me to fuppofe, however, that the admiffion. of this ordinance, is a fundamental truth, or the rejedion of it, a fundamental error. Though I poflefs a firm perfuafion in my own mind, that •the church-memherjhip of infants, and their confe- quent right of introdudion into the vifible church by the initiatory facrament of baptifm, are found*- ed upon the unanimous evidence of fcripture, reafon, and antiquity ; yet I dare not infiinuate, without a grofs violation of the laws of truth and chriftian charity, that our Anabaptift brethren, who dlifent from us on this fubjecft, are guilty of a fundamental miftake, § no more than we would B 2 confign § When perfons are hurried on by an inordinate attachment to a fa- Torlte ceremony, their precipitancy is fometimes fo very great, as to make xli. INTRODUCTION. conlign to perdition, the whole body of the peo- ple, called Shakers, becaufe they difcountenance both the facraments. Yet, in oppolition to the one, as total reje^ors, and to the others, as glaring mutilators of the inliitutions ofChrift, we deem it a matter of indifpenfable obligation to defend the whole truth, on this fubjec^t, againft each mode of innovation. And we have an additional reafon for maintain- ing a fleady oppolition to the advocates for Ana- baptifm, becaufe bigotry is interwoven with their very fentiments. If Anabaptlfts were content with candidly adhering to their peculiarities, without animadverting feverely on their differing bre- thren ; I am certain that no Pcedobaptift would ever take up his pen againft them. But, when we hear one among them, bringing the charge of hlindnejs againft fome of the brighteft flars of the church; 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 wosild probably rejeiSt with horror. Tliis has been the cafe with fome warm Anabaptifts. Impelled by the force of bigotry, and actuated by a delire of eftabhilTi- ing a party, they have labored fo to enhance the importance of their diftinguifliing rite, as to make fubmiffion to it a fundamental duty, and to affix implicit damnation to its rejedtors. Of this Mr. Tomhes was no- torioufly guilty, in an unguarded Addrefs to the inhabitants of Scwdlcyi ■wherein, befides afTerting, that " it was hypocrijy that hindered them " from receiving the truth, he went ftiU farther, and charged their *' BLOOD ON THEIR OWN HEADS; as if (as Mr. Baxter fa.ys) their damna-^ " tion were like to follow, if they were not re-baptized. He tol4 them *• alfo that Infani-Baptifm pleaded from circumc'ifwn, is a herejy." Thus, ac- cording to Mr. Tombfs, the pious members of Mr, Baxter^ church were hypocrites, heretics, and in danger of damnation, only becaufe they would not bow down to the great Diana of Anabaptifm, — See this unchari- table bigotry, together with all the other concomitant errors of Ana- baptifts, expofed in Mr. Baxtefs Fhin Scripture-proof cf Infants' Church- Memberpip and Baptifm. dipping. INTRODUCTION. Xlll. dipping, under the pompous title of an effsntial^-f — when another has the vanity to reprefent Pcedo- baptills as '* not fleering clear of the general cor- ruption;"*— when a third has the boldneis to allert, that " there are no people right in all the world, but Anabaptifts;" % — when a fourth will injurioully reprefent Infant-Baptifm as "' a pillar of Popery i'^ — when a fifth will maintain, while pleading for immerlion, that " he contends not for a particular mode of baptifm, but for baptifm itfelf:" II even though fach an unfcriptural po- jition 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 reafon to Jhun every fcheme of woriliip," (a contemptuous word iox: Fcedobaptiji Communion) " however pioufly intended i" and that " the forfaking the affem- blies of the (Anabaptifl) churches, is hurtful and deftrudive oiioci^X religion; that uniting with other congregations, is favoring the defign of di [orderly men\ and that every religious aflbciation, that is \ This Mr. Medky has repeatedly done. * Parmenas has infinuaLed this, in his curious Addrefs. \ The modeft dcclar::-tion of Mr. Turner, of Birwhigham. § If the reader can mafifir up patience, fufficieut to read a book, car- rying a bluftering title page, but totally void of argument, he may perufe a tradt of Dr. Gi/Z's, intitled, lnfai:t-Baptifr>i a Part and Pillar of J^opery. 11 Thefe are the very words of Dr. Stennct, in the Preface of the firft part of his Remarks on Mr. AJdhiglonA excellent treatife, intitled, The cbriftian lAwiJicfi reafons for baptizing infants, and for admimjlering the ordi- lidHCt Ij fprinkling or pouring of -water. not xlr. INTRODUCTION. not fubfervient to the communion of faints, in the order of the gofpel," (by which, I fappofe, is meant the gofpel-or.ier of Anabaptifts,; " tends to the fuhverfion of the Redeemer's kingdomj" •f — when a feventh roundly affirms, *' We refufe to commu- nicate witii the C\\uvch. oi England, for the fame reafon that flic refufes to communicate with per- f If the realer chufe t® fee a fpecinjen of genuine church-bigotry, 1 •would have him by all means look into a little traft, from which I have taken the above quotations; intitled, A Humble Addrefi to the Churches of Chrijl, &c. The author, Mr- Benjamin WaUln, is a pious minifter among jhe Anabaptifts ; and I bear him record, that he has a prodigious zeal for the peruliar interefls of the people with Avhom he is connected : 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 Addrefs, with a Imienlatkn that " godlincfs, and confequently tlie glory of the churches is daily decaying." If by the " decay cf godUncfs''' Mr. JV. mean';, a declenfion from the principles and pracSlice of the truth which is after godiinefs, I mufl: take the liberty to charge his ob- fervation with a manifefl miflake. For at the time the fecond edition of his Addrefs was publillied, (A. D. 1761), true godlinefs was exceed- ingly upon the increafe, and, blalTed be God! ftill is; if the multipli- cation of gofpel miniftcrs and gofpel profeffors be any proof. Ho^y , therefore, a rapid increafe of true godlinefs fliould occafion, what Mr. W. calls a " decay of the glory of the churches," fo as (Prcf. p. 6) " to reduce the viflble intereft of Jcfus very h-ai," I confefs I am at a lofs to find out ; unlefs by the " glory of the churches" be intended, the glory of An^iiap/ifm, and by a *' reducing of the vifible intereft of Jefus," he mean, the non-attendance of Anabaptifts on their refpecSlive Minifteri>, And indeed, T flirewdly conjecSbure this to be Mr, ??"s meaning. For, although (in p. 19,) he introduces a perfon, as urging a plea for occa- fional abfence from his ftated minifter, founded on the poihbility of " fitting down with (other) children of God under a found gofpcl- miaiftry;" yet this reafonable, this catholic, this pious plea he rejeifts, by wildly fuppoGng it to befuggefted by the devil himfelf, and by aflcing him, (p. 20,) the following queftlon : " Why do thefc perfon s, by a folemn acft of union and fellowHiip with it, fupport and countenance, ip the church of God, a form of human invention ?" Here the fecret is all out ; and the real Englifli of Mr. TF.'a vv'holc Addrefs is, " Hear none, but us. Communicate with none but us ; for the temple of the Lord, tJje temple of the Lord are we !" O bigotry ! hadft thou ever more trufty friends, or more zealous do vo tees, than the Anabaptifts in generaf, »ad Mr. Botjam'ni WuUin in particular .' fons INTRODUCTION, xv, fons^JIie cannot e/ieem baptized.'"* — When another Anabaptlft gives the finilhing flroke 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 ths church ; is It to be wondered that the advocates for truth Ihould rife up againft fuch men, and op.- pofe their fplrit and principles ? For my own part, I look upon an oppolitlon to the fpirit of ancient and modern Anabaptifm, as a very Important and neceifary part of minifte- rial duty. When Anabaptifts enclofe themfelves within the ftrong-holds of bigotry; look down from their lofty ramparts, with fovereign con- tempt upon their differing brethren; and fhoot their arrows of uncharitablenefs, againtt the chil- dren of God; what can we do, but objeil to their bigoted peculiarities the feven-fold Ihield of fcrip- ture, reafon, antiquity, moderation, candor, cha- rity and truth ? * So Dr. Ga/f fays, in p. 28, oihh—ReJlcxhin! on Dr. WaWs Hijiory of Jnfant-Baptlfm. In anfwer to which, the Pcedobaptifl: Dodtor fmartly rephes, ia hi? excellent Dtf/fKCf of his own Hijhry, "This" (the above declaration) *' is indeed fliort, full and open. But then it is a defperate unchar'itahk tenet ; like to that of the Donatifts and Paptfis : None faved, no Chriftians but themfelves : None baptized for many hundred years, but a few of the Alh'tgenfes, -at the year iioo, and a few flraggling people in Holland and England fince 1522. Even thofe in Holland are moft, or many of them cut off; for they do commonly ufe r7/a/;9«." He (Dr. Gij/fJ in this point, forfakes molt of thofe of his own " communion." — See Dr. /faV's Defence^ p. 86, § Sec tfee note for page viii. As xvi. INTRODUCTION. As Anabaptifts unchurch their brethren; muft not the perfons fo wichurched, attempt a vindica- tion of their common right to church-member- ihip ? If we are looked upon as unbaptized; is it not our duty to remove the groundlefs inlinua- tion? When bigotry vents its anathemas, and fchifm multiplies divifions in the church ; do not fcripture and reafon fuggeft the neceffity of ex- pofing the cruel claims of the one, and of admi- niftering a healing balm for the wounds occafioned by the other? Shall Anabaptifm,_ rampant with party-zeal, obtrude its peculiarities upon the church oiChrifl, to the great difturbance of unit- ed congregations ? and Ihall 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 i^Lvoxm^iht dt^ignoi diforderly menf' Shall bigot- ry thus ufurp the place of chriftian charity? and fhall not the hand of fcripture argument pufh the monfter from her ufurped throne? Muft this fame monfter fcatter abroad the coals of difcord ? and fhall we fit by as filent fpe^laiors, and attempt no extinc?lion 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 ejjentlal badge of difciplcfhip, and an ejfential in- gredient in the obedience of faith ? and fhall we not Introduction. xvIL riot remonftrate againft {\ich judaizing tenets f Shall we not plainly tell them that a particular quantity ox cold water ^ no more conftitutes the communion of faints, than meats and dilnks 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 u-arm the heart, if Taith and love be not refident there? that poor bigoted people may have prodigious faith in dipping, and yet none in Christ? and that fome Anabaptifts may fo etfeftually bury in their "watery grave" every fpark of good delire and brotherly love, as to commence frozen profellbrs, fiery bigots, and un- charitable anathematizers ? * — Shall we not tell them all this ? Yes we will, even though, like Mr. Tombes, they fliou'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 obfervatlon, that error is eafily difcoverable, by the fteam of bigotry, that proceeds from the monfter's mouth. And when it pollutes the air of the church, with its infedious breath, is it not our duty, to level a ferious blow at the hideous m.onfter? and to point out its deformity, left others fuck in the foul taint, and become pro- felytes, not to truth, but to bigotry!' I 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 diffenlions in Germany, it now, under an angelic form, is the nurfe of con- • When I fajr, this may be the cafe of fcrne, I am far from infi- Ixuating, it a ib with all. C tiaual xvlli. INTRODUCTION. tinual religious anlmofities among the people 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 this huge GoUah, that defies and difturbs the armies of Jfrael. In doing this, a degree of plainnefs and fcriptural feverity will be unavoidable. I {d.y,fcrip- tural feverity j 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 fa6l, and tempered by brotherly love. I know, when error is hard pufhed by forcible reafoning, and bigotry Is hunted out of all its mi- ferable fubterfuges, that their miftaken advocates are ready to publilh a hue-and-cry againf^ their opponents, by charging that upon their fpirit, which is nothing more than the feverity of folid truth. Thus the blame cafl upon the fpirit, is often but an evafive apology for a defect oi argu- ment. This kind of blame generally proceeds, like- wife from the very nature of error; which, hke a difordered limb, cannot bear a fearching remedy. As the gentlefl application of the furgcon's inflru- ment to a fore place, will give pain ; fo the tender- eft manner of treating error will be often cenfured 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, xix^ the penetrating probe attempts a radical cure. Hence good Mr. Baxter fays, in his admirable Vindication of Infants' Church-memherfhip and Bap- tifm, " I find it is the excoriation and exulceration of men's fpirits, that ufually caufeth the /mart, and maketh words (and arguments) to feem intolera- ble ; which are either but a duty, or wholly blame- lefs; or at leaft 3l found mind would never hsivefeU them." However, throughout the courfe of my obfer- v^tions, I hope my heart will be influenced by that brotherly love, which is the genuine charac- teriftic of a difciple of Christ, and which is ever ready to propofe, and admit, terms of reconcili- ation between differing brethren ; more efpecially, where the differences do not refpe^t the funda-* mentals of chriftianity. While bigots dip their pen in the gall of bitter inve6f ive and party-rancor ; may mine difiil with the penetrating juice of folid truth, and the balfamic oil of chriftian affe(5iion ! May the Jiftillation of this double fluid, make my pen, the happy inflrument, of carrying conviilion to my opponent's mind, of dete6fing the monfler bigotry, and of healing every wound that the con- troverfial fword may occaflon ! If one part of the mingled juice Ihould at any time adminifl:er a fen-i fation of acrimony j may it be abundantly cor- re<5led 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 corrojive to bigotry and error, and a promoter of brotherly-^ ^indnefs and charity ! And, as long as my oppo- C 2 nenta XX. INTRODUCTION. ponents chufe to continue the debate, may our hearts be engaged in prayer to God ! that no root of bitterncfs may fpring up, to darken our views of truth, or interrupt the exercife of mutual affec- tion I Ahhough the field of controverfy, like the bar- ren mountains of Gilboa, is too often deftitute of the deiv of real edification, or the rain of divine bene- di6fion; yet I believe, this arifes, not fo much from the thing itfelf, as, eventually, from the fpirit of the difputants, Controverfy is, or ought to be, one mode of inveftigating /r«M; and as no inveftiga- tion can be fo important, as that which has fcrip- iural truth for its object; we have certainly reafon to expe(5f the bleffing of God, in our pious re- fearches, provided they are guided by his word, influenced by his Spirit, retrained by his law, fub- ordinate to his will, and conducive to the good of his church. Ever lince 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 thirft after truth ; which has been heightened, in proportion to the real importance of any particular truth, and the earnefinefs, with which it has been controverted. As a minifier of the gofpel, and a member of the church of Eng- land, 1 have been led to examine the peculiar fen- timents of our church, refpedling do6lrines and dif- cipliiie. As to the former, I can truly fay, they appear to me, in their general import, perfectly to harmonize with that form of found words, deli- vered INTRODUCTION, xxl. vered by Christ and his apoftles; and as to the latter, although candor obliges me to acknow- ledge, that fome inferior parts of it may not be abfolutely defenlible, * and that the whole of it futfers too great a degree oi relaxation, in the pre-, fentday of degeneracyj yet taking it altogether, in its general conliftency with itfclf, I believe the dif- cipline, in conjun6iion with the excellent dodrinal fyftem of our church, is calculated to preferve it from the inconveniences of confujhn and dijorder, as v/ell as from the audacious aifaults of herefy: and yet I am far from being offended with any chriflian friend, who is of a contrary opinion. As the pradice of Infant-Baptifm is eftablilhed in the church of England, and indeed, m every national reformed church throughout the world ; and as this primitive inflitutlon has always been warmly * When I fay, fome inferior parts, I mean fuch as do not immediately afFedt the ejfeuce of our church-difcipline. I mod: heartily approve of the formulary and offices of the Church of England, in general ; and the' there are fome modes of exprelTion, in fome parts of them, which may Eot be ftridtly dcfenfible ; 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. Sandji'?, confident interrogatory, in p. lo, of his Letter to . " Will the V. deny, that there are a gi'cat many errors, re- tained in the formulary and offices of the Church of Er.glandF If he denies this, I beg leave to obferve, he has greatly altered his opinion." A. ^^ great many errors'^ in our formulary I And this " OHff my opi- nion!" In anfwer to the polite gentleman, who fo humbly " hegs leave'' to make this " cbfervatiou," I certify all whom it may concern, that I am here confronted with a falie accufation ; and that I never infinuated, alTerted, or thought, that there was any thing in our formulary, that jnerited the ferious title of real errors ; much lefs that they were either *' great" or ^' many." On the contrary, I believe our excellent fervlces abound with truths; and thefe too, many in number! and great in impor- tance ! oppofed xxii. INTRODUCTION. oppofed by Jnabaptijis^ from the mad reign of yg'.m of Leyden, down to the interregnum of Crom- well's ufurpation, and from that halcyon Mra of Anabaptifm to the prefent day; 1 have been na- turally led to inquire into the ground of an oppo- fitlon, which originated from German ranterifm, and is ftill ventilated by fome miftaken pious brc- tliren in Great-Britain. The refult of this inquiry has been, a full convi6\ion of the apoftolic, pri- mitive, fcriptural, and rational validity of Infant- Eaptifin, and of the novelty and evil tendency of Anabaptifm , whether German or Britijlu Since the commencement of the prefent contro- verfy, my mind has been neceffarily turned to- wards the lubjecSt, fo as to enter more deeply into it, than before : and, I declare, that, whatever doubts 1 may have formerly entertained, refpe£t- ing fome of the arguments of Foedodaptifts, the more I deliberate upon thefe arguments, and upon thofe on the oppolite lide of the queftion, the more I am convinced of the ftrength of the one, and of the weaknefs and fallacy of the other. This convidicn 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. Parme?2as 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 -, and that for learning and politenefs, they are fuch exa6i twins f one would be apt to imagine, like the fam'd Cajtor and Pollux, ex ovo procedure eodem: and, if malapertnefs and fpleen are convertible terms for argument INTRODUCTION, xxlli. argument and brotherly love, England cannot pro- duce a like couple of controvertifts. — As for poor Mr. 'Turner, of Birmingham, he has written in fo much hafte, as to obfcrve neither method, nor ar- gument: and, like a perfon that has outrun his flrength, before he has advanced half way in the race, Mr. T. pants for breath, where he Ihould ht cool to examine his fubjeft. — High as our expec- tations were raifed, by the advertifed frontifpiece of Mr. Medleys publication, I cannot help faying,^ that the title-page is an abfolate burkfque upon the contents-, and that one might almoft look upon the title, " Chriftian Baptijm defended,^' as an ironical fubftitute for Anabaptifm deferted and hif ant- Baptijm defended. For, abftraded from a few Tallies of vul- gar wittlcifm ; an uncouth arrangement of fome trite obfervations ; not a little perfonal abufe ; fome horroived notes; and a prodigious flock of wordy tautology ; — I fay, abftra(5led from thefe, Mr. M's pamphlet contains nothing truly formidable. And, howfoever this performance maybe aggran- dized in the imagination of his admiring friends, fo, as like fome huge figure to fetch a haughty ftride over my puny letter; yet I think a kw Jiones of ar- gument levelled from (he /ling of God's word, will eafily fhock this great Colojfus ; and bring it, toge- ther with all its brazen pomp, to the ground. And methinks, if ever the tantus hiatus was literally il- luftrated, it was, when Mr. M.'s, produ6^ion came forth, after a long previous pompous advertife- ment. 'f When f To the befl of my recolledlion, the advertifement, declaring that Mr. Medkft pamphlet wou'd be Jhortly publiilied, was inferted in the Shrs-wjburj xxiv. INTRODUCTION. When I mention, above, fome doubts, refpe6l-' 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 fmgular : for the great Zuinglius himfelf, and good Mr. Baxter, labored under fuch an embarraflinent j infomuch .that the former at one time denied Infant-Baptifni altogether, and the latter defered his entering up- on a full miniilerial charge, becaufe of his k-tent fcrupks refpe61ing the validity of the ordinrnce. And, it is exceedingly remarkable, that thefe two doubters, were afterwards, tv/o of the moff zealous and able deferiders of the controverted rite. * As Shrnvfoury Paper, Saturday, May ajth ; and yet the advertifement in the fame Paper announcing its actual publication, did not appear till July 20th. So that here was an interval of very near nvo montki between the lirft and fccond notice ; and this is called suorti, v. Our Anabaptift friends are in luch a prodigious hurry to let the world know what is coming, that they advertile the future birth, probably, before a great part of the expedted prodigy is conceived. This looks like a fpecimen of Mr. Farmenas's precipitancy. * Take Mr. Baxter's own words, in p. 3, of his Ayohgy, prefixed to his Flaiii Scripture Proof of Infants' Cbirrch-Mcwberjliip, &c. — " Thefe dif- coverics did quickly ftny me. And the feparating, dividing, fcaxdabus ccurfes of all the Anahaflifts that I was acquainted with, with their igno- rance and YiTond felf-efteem, and defpfing the prcciouieft miniilers of Chrift, {kier mc i"roin affociating with them. Yet did I remain doubtful fome time after. I refolvcd therefore, filently to forbear the practice, while 1 further fludied the point. And I admired to find, that learned holy Reformer, ZuiiigUus, (afterwards the maul of the Anahaptifis) to deliver his experience in the very like kind, and that hh cafe and mine were fb near the fame, that by arguments giving too much to" (that is, laying too vi-reat a ftrcfs on the outward and viiible 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 powerful oppoftion to that error) as you may fee in Tom. %, p. 63. And why flioulJ not I as freoly confcfs my iniic- Uiities, tNTRODUCTIOR xxv". As the matter in debate, betwixt us and the Anabaptifts, 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 neceflary diftin6lions of the following celebrated maxim J In necejfariis unitas; in non necejfariis LiBERTAS; in omnibus charitas. -f That the 3*eader may fee, how far myfelf and my opponents have adhered to, or fwerved from, this three-fold diftin6lion, I will lay before him alittle hiiioricfketcli of the prefent difputation, from its firft rife to the prefent moment. And I Ihall the rather do this, becaufe it will enable me to make fome curfory remarks on the refpe(?l:ive produdions of the twin- difputants, MelTrs. Parmenas and Sandys; and to re- move fome of the dirt of fallhood and mifrepre- fentatlon, wherewith, the pamphlets of thefe re- doubtable Gemelli are overftocked. I fay, fome-, becaufe, to remove all, would be an Herculean tabor-, like cleanfmg the accumulated filth, froin the polluted ffablcs oi Aug<£as. Sometime, I think, mDecemberi'j'] ^, IVlr. Medley , an Anabaptift Minii-ier, reiident in Liverpool, made a vifit to Shrew/bury, The principal intent of this vilit, was, to adminlfter immerfion to certain members among the Anabaptifts, who were deem- ed qualified for that ceremony. Left the reader Ihiould fuppofe, that Mr. M.'s journey was occa- mlties, as he ? who yet afterwards fpoke more fiarp'y againfl their docftrines, practices, &c. as alfo did Luther, Calvin, BuUhiger, Rhegius, Wigandui, with the reft of thofe holy, learned Reformers." 'f In eJfcnt'iaU unity; in non-ejjentiah uberty; in all things, cHArarv, D fioned, xxvl. INTRODUCTION, Honed, through the ahjenct, indifpofttion, or abfb- lute ivant of a Baptift Minii^er in Shreivjbury, I think it necclTary to inform him, that there Is one in town, equally qualified with Mr. M. for difpen- ling baptifmj who, at the time the candidates re- quired immerlion, was neither abfent, nor indif- pofed. But an unhappy diviiion, fubfifting be- tween this minlfter and one part of the people here, (in which divifion, it feems, Parmenas, whofe real name is Phillips, took a very ac^llve part; and the immcrfion taking place on Parmenas's fide of the quertion,) a commiilion extraordinary was fent to Mr. M. appointing him adminiftrator, in- preference to his brother in difgrace. Thus Par- imnas in fending, and Mr. ?A. in coming, united in a virtual fomentation of the prcfent divifion. % As I was not unacquainted with the delign of Mr. M.'s vifit, fo neither was I ignorant, that it was ufual for Anabaptifl-Minlflers to expatiate on their favorite ceremony; and in all their bapti- zation>, to produce whatever pittance of argu- ment they are flocked -with, in recommendation I Let none fuppofe I triumph in this divifion. Indeed I do not. On the contrary, that perfoas in the fame toiun, of the fame denojuinathn, and of the fame cpinhn too in the grand effentials of the gofpel, fliould not unite in one and the fame church-communion, is a circumflance, that gives me real concern. And, if Parminas, otherwifc Mr. Phillips, otherwi:e the ^'■Deacon of the Be pttft-Church meeting, in High-Jireet, Shreivfuury ," will but muftcr up humility enough, to make a proper fubmilBon to the minifler, in whofe expulfion he had fuch an atElive hand ; and if, in con- ibquence of fach humble fubmiillonj a rc-union fliould take place betiveen tlie prefent difagreeing parties ; I mod ferioully declare, that fuch an event would afford me real pleafure ; not onlv as it would reftore peace to a divided ciafs of pious Anohaptijls, but, as it would likewife indicate, t!\at poor, precipitate, inflammable Parmenas, was at lall converted into the hiunble and paciiic I\Ir. n.iHips, of INTRODUCTION, xxvli. of their diftingullh'mg mode. Taking this for granted, and feeling not the fmalleft difcompofure on the occalion (though I murt own, I was a httle furprifed, that one who affects to lay fo Httle ftrefs on water-baptifm, fhould dip his candidates in a cold bath in the depth of winter,) * 1 entertained Mr. M. at iny houfe; and gave him that friendly reception, which I would, to any man of any de- nomination, where our dilFerences in judgment did not Yei^pe(^ ejfejttiah : And, in the courfe of converfation, I even afTured 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 were agreed in matters of greater importance." •f' * If it be aflicd, " But what mufl be done ? Since Mr. S. is not-qua- lified for dipping ; and the Mini fter, whom P. and his party expelled from among them, is not tolerated to perform the ceremony; how fliali the candidates be immerfed ?" I anfwer ; if they will not accept of im- mcrfion from the Minifler they ftill hold in difgrace, let them appl3'any ■where but to Liverpool. Mr. M. is by no means a proper perlbn to be appointed adminiftratcr. His conftitution is too injlainmable, ever to be trulted with an occalion of expatiating on cold iMater. And, if I m^y judge from the pompofity and vaunting nature of his late harangues, as well as frona the uncommon bigotry of his fpirit, I never knew an Ana-< baptifl:, lefs qualified to be a healer ef church-breaches, or a promoter cf peace. My vote then is; — nny tnan for the dipper, hut Mr- AZ. unlefs he iliould make a more humble, candid, and modefi appearance, than lie has done in his late vifit to Shrrwjbury. t This friendly declaration, Mr. Parmenas has mentioned in his third produAion, intitled, " Eccleftajlical Zeal" (or more properly Diaconfd fury ,) but with what Intent, I am at a lofs to find out; unlefs it be, to jnfinuate a contraft between this declaration and my fubfequent Letter to Mr. 1^1. But the force of this infinuatiou is repelled, by confidering, tiiat when it was made, I was totally ignorant of Mr. M.'s falfe dodlrine of the eflentlaljty of dipping. 'Till he reeants that, I revoke my decla- j-fction, D 1 And xxvlll. INTRODUCTION. And the evening after this vlfit, I went to hear Mr. M preach. All this time I heard none of the exceptionable paffages in Mr. M.'s exhortations on the neceffity of dipping. But, after his departure, hearing from one and another, that his animadverlions wc:re full of ridicule, and feverity ; and, that, belides main- taining his favorite point with much dogmatic po- iitivenefs, he made fubmiifion to believers' dipping *' ESSENTIAL to the obedieiice of faith;'* perceiving, that fuch doilrine, favored ftrongly of the Galatian leaven; tended to corrupt the gofpel of Christ; and was calculated to embarrafs the minds of the limple ; I thought, a itw falutary hints on the fub- jeft, vvould not be altogether ufelefs or unfeafon- able. Accordingly, as the beft mode of calling this politive gentleman to an account, and of ref- cuing the minds of fome of my hearers from any degree of cmbarraffment, I tranfmitted my thoughts to the prefs. As i w lined to proceed with a degree of caution, I wrote to Mr. Phillips, acquainting him frankly with my delign, and requefting his information with refpecf to Mr. M.'s do61rine of baptifmal ejfen- tiality. Poor P. was immediately thrown into luch a pannic and agitation of mind, that he fets about an Address ^0 ^/2^ Baptiji-Church meeting, in High- Jireet, Shrewjhury; which was both finillied, pub- liilied, and read by his reverend auxiliary in the meeting, before my pamphlet faw the light. As this little fcrap of fplenetic divinity, contained the mofi glaring mifreprefeqtations of the flate, fpirit, and INTRODUCTION, xxlx, and condu61: of Poedobaptifls, I thought a IVordto Farmcnas might reprels the nn pertinencies of his pen; check, the bigotry of his fpirit; and ferve as a Uttle rereward to my Letter to a Baptifi-Minijier. I hoped alfo, that a hint. to Parmenas, refpefl:ing his difqualification, as an author, might fave the pubHc from the lumber of his future productions: But I was mifiaken. The fame Parmenas writes again. His fecond performance is worfe than the firli ; for this fails in every refpedT:. Having dif- covered a piece of Ihameful dilingenuity, patro- nized by Mr. Sandys under the rofe, I gave a Reply to my IV or dy antagoniil, in which I deteiled and ex- poled the ignorance and llynefs of his reverend aid-de-camp; and held forth both to public view, as pretenders to divinity and learning. I really thought, after the firft admonition, Par- menas would take the friendly hint ; but more ef- pecially after I had made him Jick of his efforts in criticijm, logic, and tranjlation. But 1 was too fan- guine in my expectations ; and a judicious note of the refpe6table London Reviewers, proves what a very incompetent judge 1 am of the fpirit and ge- nius of bad writers. * However, could I fuppofc it poQible, after wrefting out of Parmenas' s hand every weapon of low chicanery, paralogifm, and falfe 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, uutra^able, and fclf'fufficient, as a had lur iter. He might, juft as foon make a lilken purfe of a ibw's ear, as make a. bad writer lay down his pen, on a full convi(itton he is not a good one." Excellent ohfervation! I earneftly recommend it to Parmenas, and the other itarncd Duumvir, the xx!f. INTRODUCTION. the world believe it, that a poor illiterate man, would thrice deO-rt his proper bufinefs, and llicw his face in the field of controverfy ? Strange and un- accountable as it may feem, it is ftricl'y true. But mark the cunning of our Salopian Deacon : Hav- ing made him afhamed of his pompous lif^nature, Formenas, he intirely drops it, and fends forth his ihrd publication, without a name ; probably, that as an rmonvmow! fcribbler, he might give full fcope to the overflowings of his abuiive pen, which might be otherwife reftrained under the ufe of a venera- ble fcrtpture namej and that people might not fuppofe that Mr. Anonymous was Mr. Parmenas y though but a peep into the Dialogue might fooii convince one of the fmalleft difcernment, that as face anfwereth to face in a glafs, fo do the features .of the Dialog i/I to thofe of the wordy AddreJJer. Whoever reads Parmenas's late Dialogue, will na- turally fuppofe, that he has now " brought forth'* all his " little" flock *' of knowledge;" and that, having got to the very zenith of paffion, he has at laft arrived at his ne-plus-idtra of abufe. And yet, fuch is the fertility of the ingenious Parmenas's imagination, and fo ftrongly does he feem aife61:ed with a certain diforder, peculiar to bad writers, called caccsthes fcriheiidi the itch offcribbling; that I fhould not be at all furprifed, if, after having ex- hibited himftlf, as an addreffer, a critic, a logician, a tranjiator, a dialogue-writer, a deacon, he Ibould make one grand effort more; ftraln all the nerves of his foaring genius; and, to the aftonilbment of the whole world of pamphleteers, produce d, fourth trai/7^. So that, our fabricators of nonfenfe have here, only the moderate triumph of i nonfenfical criticifm= Sut, whoever remembers how they blundered in the tranflation of my motto, will think that their triumph, in quality of tranflators is for ever fallied, by that nevcr-to-bt-forgotten faux pas. * So far am I from being difpofed to rcb the worthy t'j.'i.i'di/pi:tjnts of their pretcnfuas to a Utaury mtc, that, on the ccatrary> I wilh to be , inftrameatiil Introduction, xxxiii. Here I fhould drop Meflrs. P. and 5". and fa- lute th€fey)7/^^/V-learned^(id7y// with a longumi'akf Were it not that dire neceffity obliges me to defer my long farewell^ 'till I have expofed the falihood of their reprefentations, and the futility of fome of their arguments. And before I do this, I mufl beg leave to premife, that of the two. I look upon Mr. S. 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 Englilh writer f- and a better reajoner (tho' bad is the beil) than S. yet E he inftrumental in adding to the flock, by affording them a frefli opportu- nity of difplaying their genius, and exhibiting their (what Mr. 5. calls) " immenfe ftores of clalEcal trealure." As this pamphlet is likely to be pretty large, it will give them locus ad agendum anipUJfimus. And, if they think proper to review all the little errata, in commas, fyllables, punc- tuation, letters, &c. they fliall be dubbed eniCndators laureat, correBors- gencral of the prefs ; and fliali have my lull confent, for receiving aa annual tributary panegyric, from thofe renowned Literati, the worthy Society " Of Word-catchers, that live on SylhiUcs." f In order, once for all, to fliame P.'s auxiliary, out of his pedantry and impertinence, I need only remark, that when a corre<5t Englitli fen- tence is laid before him, he cannot difcover its correclnefs ; and by attempting to find fault, he gives an additional manifeftation of his ig- norance. In my Reply to Parmenas, I drop the following conceiHon, " — Upon the walls of this battery (of fcripture and realbn) I fliould never have prefumed to appear, when I confidered "that //" {battery, the immediate antecedent) " furniibes many more able and experienced foldiers than myfelf." Is it any deviation from grammar, to make it ^cier to battery ? Or from fenfe, to fay, a "battery" of fcripture and rea- ibn *^ furnijiies," or exhibits, foldiers? Our pedantic -word-catcher dog- matizes in an inflant, and, v/ithout informing us why, pronounces the fentence " neither fenfe nor grammar." But, in fo doing, he reminds me of the fable of the I'/^e'r andyj/f. Ofcndit filido. The fentence is too hard for our criticijing viper's teeth. — But " it contains a solIcism!" As 1 never met with fuch a word in the Englifla language, I turned back to our critic's table of errata; and, though he has marked feveral words there. xxxlv. INTRODUCTION. he labors under the difadvantage, of not being able to fcold fo profulely in Latin and Greek. P. abufes In plain Englllh ; but ^'a In " immenfe J^ores of clojjical treafure." The one talks big, but itill retains his Liliputlan gait. Whereas the other takes gigantic ftrldes In inve6^Ive; and firuts tanto molimine, that you would Imagine It was yack the Giant-killer himfelf; Ihakes his polemic tegis, and informs his opponent that " he lets him go this time with a gentle chaftlfementj" confronts you with the high- founding names oi Agamemnon, Pe- Icides, with whom I conjeflure (by the bye) he has a very fuperficial acquaintance ; and vapors away upon the fhoulders of Homer, Horace, &c. as a t;$- l^zycct;. * But there, that are defedtive only in a letter, I perceive he has taken no notice of this. Upon turning back to p. 37, I find, at the bottom of th« page, the fame word a yfCi?n^ time, written ^\fohdfm." Now, this is to certify our blundering ivord-catcher, that, if he intended to give us a fpe- cimen of his critical knowledge of EngVifti, or of the derivation of Englifli ■words, he lliould have written folEciJm, or more properly fola£cif?n ct. o-oAoi!£j^£ti/ filoccifare; a word derived from Soke a city of Cilicia, the inr- habitants of which were remarkable for their barbarifms. Would not p.ny perlbn imagine our Salopian Soloecift had once breathed the air of the EUician Soke? I am fo convinced that his whole genius is one grand compound of fcloecifm, that, fromthis day forth, Difcipulorum inter jnieo plorare cathedrns ! * It fcems a very fortunate circumftance for Mr. S. that I happened, in my Reply li Parmenas, to give him a little check for his difingenuity in criticifm, (from which he has not yet exculpated himlelf,) and for his ignoi-ance of common Latin. This gentle touch of my controverfial •wand, which, I hoped, like the famed Cadiiceus, would have etfeeStually lulled to profound reft this gentleman's " polemic acumen" had a con- trary effceT; : it roiifed his deeping genius ; and, like the happy blowof Vulcan s hatchet, that extradted from Jove's pate the martial and fapient Goddefs Minerva, it turned out of Mr. S.'s fmitten pericranium, fiich *' immenfe /lores ofclajpcal treafure," as might otherv.-ife have lain dormant '^'ithin the teeming womb of his pregnant underftanding. Happy there- fore INTRODUCTION, xxxn But to return to P. — Ever lince I have engaged in this controverfy, 1 have obferved, that all ray opponents (except Mr. 'J'ttrmr) have accofted me with perfonal abufe, in the very titles of their re- fpedlive publications ; and none more fo, than the author of " Ecclefiaftical Zeal," or Diaconal Rage. I had, in my '* Reply to Parmenas," declared, that *' I was forry to make any (controverlial) attack ** upon (the Anabi^ptifts, whom I efteemed as) " chrijiian brethren; of whofe piety I had a conli- *' derable opinion, &c." This candid declaration, P. 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 calHng a man a lyar; and, when he conliders, that this is done, through the Ihameful abufe of a friendly de- claration, and through the perverted appHcation 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 the moft fore for Mr. S..' happy for the public ! and thrice happy forme! that 1 happened to give the fortunate blow ! otherwiie we might have lofl *' immenfe treafuie" 'nidceiLl But if my pen, has hitherto turned out fuch a capital midwife to Mr. S.'s noddle ; what may we not expe(£t from this mtre energetic blow, and the fecond produ(Stion it is little to bring forth ? Inflead of a tyro, armed cap-a-pce, with all the martial imple- ments oi bigotry, and decorated with fliiaing patches of heroic verfe; may we not expecEt fome demi-reverend paedagogue, accoutred in old Scr.ibkrtis's coat-of-mail new-furbillied ? keeping the world in awe with his critical conundrums, brilliant mottos, theological fcraps ; and dif- fufing terror through the whole circle of the literati, with the thunder- ing panoply of his 3ciiihiUo, firidor, clangor, taratnntara, murmur F E z fanguinc xxxvi. INTRODUCTION, fanguine expreflions of candor? and even alTumes the divine prerogative of knowing what is in my heart ? I declare, fuch advertifed impiety Ihocks me. And I take this method of acquainting Mr. P. that if he makes no better improvement in genuine piety, while lit ting at the feet of his Anabaptift Gamaliel; the Deacon will be no more a credit to the Paftor, than the Paftor has hitherto fhewn 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. 1 fay, in my Reply to Parmenas, " Of *' whofe piety I have, upon the whole, a conlidera- *' ble opinion, &c. The words " upon the whole^'* P. leaves out j and, by fo doing, deftroys, not on- ly the emphajis of my declaration, but alfo the reftriciive ciaufe, which determines my precife meaning. For, when I declare *' I have a conli- «* derable opinion of the piety of Anabaptii-ts, upon *' the whole," my obvious meaning, is ; that al- though,/o/72^ Anabaptifts have no piety at all, and the piety of others may be difgraced with excep- tionable condud ; yet, that, taking them altoge- ther as a profeffing community, they are " Chrif- *' tian brethren, people upon the zvhole, of coniide- " rable piety, and conftitute a refpedable body of *' Proteftant Diffenters " If P. does not as yet un- derftand my meaning, I will exemplify it for him, in an obfervation ad hominem, viz. Though I efteem the Anabaptifts to be perfons of conftdera- ble piety, upon the whole-, yet this implies an excep- tion, as tQ feme individuals -, fo, as that I can re- tain INTRODUCTION, xxxvn. tain my candid opinion inviolate ; even thougbi I fhould efteem Parmenas, a man of no piety at all. F. aided by the prodigious fertility of his imagi- nation, and impelled through the violent paroxyfni of a malignant diforder, under which he labors, called the fpieen, has thrown his laft produ6^ion into the form of z 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 lliould be a majority for his fide 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 Fapijis in Ireland frequently manage a private oppolition to the principles of Frotejlantifm. It is cuftomary with thefe deluded people, to hold meetings, for the purpofe of conlidering the ground of the Froteji ant religion. Into thefe meetings a r^"^/ Frote/iant 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 occaiions, generally opens, with fome feeble anathemas againft Protejiantifm, and fome high-flown praifes in commendation of Fopery, A controverfy then begins, in the form of a Dialogue, between two real Fapijis, one of whom is made to perjonate a Frdejiant ; while the other, pleads the caufe of his mother, the Churchy in propria per fond. But, as it foraetimes happens, that the perfonated Protejlant fisLrts fomething, which his adverfary cannot cleverly refutej care is taken in xxxviil. INTRODUCTION. in fach a cafe, that a fort of corps-de-referve, or Pcpi/Jz fecond Ihould attend, fomewhat like P.'s Te- laliah, who might rtrengthen the hands of his tottering brother. By this means, the argumen- tation is fo conducted, that poor Ptoit/iaxtilm is kft deftitute of a lingle prep for its ilipport ; its advocates are repre'fented as " blind, not of the church, not Jieering clear of the general corrujjtion ;" v/hile 3. fourth perfon fuftains the office of a fori of PcpiJIi Moderator ; and in his official capacity, re- iembles Pannenai, the Deacon, fumming up the evidence in favor o^ Anabaptifm. Thas the argu- ments in favor of Po/)fry preponderate j the poor Profefiant is vanquill^ed ; the vidlorious Pj^//jf tri- Timphsi his aliifting lebaliah, blufters, like Mr. Sandys, with his " iminenfejhres of clajjical ireafwe-,'* while I can conceive the Popijh Moderator, with dogmatic face, and triumphant eclat, giving his verdidl in the following manner, viz. *• There are no people right in all the world, but Roman-Catho- lics!" Who fees not, from this method of conduc5>ing controverlies, in the Dialogue form, that the drama" tis perfon^ m P.'s argumentative burlefque, exa611y referable the parties in a Roman-Catholic circle of difputants? And, who does not alfo fee, that, under this arbitrary mode of writing, tru'h may be kept intirely out of view, and palpable bigotry lie artfully concealed ? — As for P.'s elegant tail- piece, intitled, " A congratidatory Addrefs, &c." it fparkles with fo much wit; difplays fuch an un- common brilliancy of imagination -, exhibits fuch a clufter I N T R O D U C T I O N. xxxk. a duller of elegant Ideas ; and lays open fucli an immenre ftock of good manners and good fcnfc ; that, if the fiibrlcation of this fame ylddrcfi does not immortalize the name of the ilirdtrious •" Deacon of the ' (Ana) '■\ b apt ifi -Church, meeting in *' High-Jireet, Shrevjjhiiry," I know not what will. A difclple of Pythagoras, who believed the doctrine of the tranfmigration of fouls, would, without the fmalleft hefitation, conclude, that the foul ot fome necromantic hero, had, by a moft fortunate metempfychojis, tranfmigrated into the body of 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 luch would read the fag-end of his dialogue, and then judge, whether they ihould not alter an opinion, which tends to 'the degradation of one, who pries fo deeply into the regions of the dead. By fummoning, into the field of controverfy, the ghrfi of a departed heathen, to alfift our Deacon's tottering caufe, the reader will eafily obferve, that P. very dexteroully pro- cedes according to the old infernal maxim : Vincere fi nequ^o fupcros, achzroxta fnovebo!* And whereas he hath difplayed his genius in forming addrejfes, in criticijm, logic, tranjlation, dialogue-writing, ghofc-raifing, &c. Ihould not his ]:)rethrcn in thcfe feveral departments of fclence, 'i'.anfiation. * If hcivfn refufe my earnefl: fuit t' attend, I'll ranfack hell, a;id i-.-.ake the DcW r.iy friend! procede xl. INTRODUCTION. procede with all poiTibb expedition, to a folemri enrolment of their learned brother among the li- terati ? I know none fo proper to prejide at fo important a ceremony, as his reverend auxihary } becaufe no perfon feems fo exa<51 a counter-part to him, in delicate invention. Witnefs this re- verend gentleman's taking occalion to infult his opponent, by comparing his " looks, to thofe of *' Pharaoh's Iea?2 kim" As I have no difpofition to retaliate fach polite affiiiiilation, I leave it to the decilion of any connoilleur in phyiiognomy, vho underfiands the — tetrum ante omnia Tultuni; whether an appeal to people's " looks," comes with any tolerable grace from Mr. Sandys, But, before P.'s enrolment, let me addrefs him upon two particulars, which, i fear will do no credit to his Deaconjhip. — i P. fays, in p. lo, ii, of his Dialogue, " I have no doubt but the Vicar " had laid the platform ; ereded the out-works ; ' and planted the cannon, fometime before,; ' only catchedat the late opportunity, to fire away ' upon his opponents, for tis much if he ever ' bore a real good v/iil to that party." Alas j for poor precipitate Pannenas ! If his confidence refpe61ing his falvation, refted upon as flight ^ balls, as the above inlinuations, 1 Ihould really tremble for him. For, I allure thee, gentle reader. they are founded upon two indiredf falllioods, (i) When he fays, " It Is much if I ever bore '' a good will to his party," he falfly accufes me. fox I always did, and, I truii, always Ihall bear a. zood INTRODUCTION. xlU gGod-wiil, not only to AnabaptlUs, but to every other denomination of chriftians, upon the face of the earth. And though 1 difapprove of, and expli- citly reprehend, the bigotry and pofitivenefs of feme Anabaptlfts; yet 1 thhik, good-will to {heiv per- fens is perfedly compatible with a difapprobation of their diftinguilliing principles; and in this point of view, my good-will extends even to Parmenas himfelf, though he is in many rcfpeds an oh]cdL of my pity and contempt. (2) It is an equally falfe inlinuation, that " i had laid the platform'* of my late publication, " femeti me before." S> far from it, that 1 never wrote a lingle line upon the fubjet^, nor thought deeply upon it, antecedently to my late publication. 1 had intended, indeed, while I was Curate of Shawbury, to have repub- liihed Bojiwick's Vindication, with a recommenda- tory Preface : but, as there was not a fingle Ana- baptift within the limits of my Curacy, and 1 was unwilling to adopt even this indirect and gentle method of oppofing a people, for feveral of whom I entertained, and do ftill entertain a iincere cfteem; I therefore wholly defifted from my de- fign, and never vrote a line of my intended re- commendation of Bojiwick. And 1 fhould have ftill obferved the fame pacific filence, had not the Anabaptift Champion from Livci'pocl, dlfturbed our neighbourhood, with his ill-timed, lud'crous harangues, in favor of dipping; and virtually call- ed us into the field of controvcrfy, to check his bigotry, and pofitivenefs. 2 But the finiihing ftroke of fallhood, and invi- dious infinuation, which P, has given us in his F Dialogue, xl'ii. INTRODUCTION. Dialogue, is In p. 8. ** What reafon have the Ana:- baptifts to exped^ quarters, when, (if commoit report may be credited) the fame learned comba- tant Is preparing to attack one of his reverend brethren of the Church of England; whofe affabi- lity, candor, and moderation towa'rds Dijfenters, lias for a long time been as confpicuous, as the Vicar's intemperate zeal." To this infinuation, I might give no other reply, than that it is as replete with falfhood, 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 *' Dijfenters," mark, with what invidious cunning, he changes the fubjecft from a contro- verlial debate with Anahaptifis in particular, to a charge of " Intemperate zeal" towards Dijfenters in general. As to P.'s brethren, let it be remem- bered once for all that I attack them, not becaufe they are Dijfenters, but becaufe they are Anabap- tijis or re-bapti^ers; and becaufe, under this cha- ra6ler, they dijfent from all the other Dijfenters 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 wilh to cultivate the utmoft peace, friendfhip, and catholic familiarity, with that very numerous, and very refpe6table body, as long as I live. And I dare affirm, that the anonymous Cler- gyman, INTRODUCTION. xlUi. gyman, to whom P. refers, does not entertain fen- timents of greater moderation towards Dijfenters, than myfelf. But he Has not attacked Anabaptifnii and I have. Hinc ilia lachrymose ! However, if this fame anonymous Clergyman, will but take up his pen, in defence of a divine inftltution, which Anahap- tijis reje6li he will probably foon find, that his moderation, at prefent fo much applauded, will in- flantly be changed (as far as mifreprefentation caa change it; into zeal as intemperate, as my ownj and that the applauding P. can currifavor and ca- lumniate alternis vicibus, 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 fome important dodirines 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 rather a controverfial form, yet the public will fee, that its object is not any individual in particular, but all, who, in my opinion, notorioufly depart from the great dodrines, they have folemnly fub- fcribed. That there are fome fuch inconliftent characters in the Church oi England, I am neither afhamed nor afraid to declare; and this, I would hope, even the currifavoring P. himfelf muft 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 oppoiition, I am equally F 2 regardlefs xllv. INTRODUCTION- regardlefs of the flandering innuendos of a pert Anabaptift, as of the favor of any Soc'nian or Ari an Eccleliaftic in the world. — Now, can a pamphlet, which does not oppofe any Clerg^'inan in particu- lar, and which will not once mention the name of the gentleman to whom P. refers, be called an ** attack' upon him? May not a man explicitly publilli his fentiments on the great do6^rines of his own church, and as explicitly oppofe the contra- ry opinions, without an imputation of " intempe- rate zeal?" But 1 cannot difmlfs this piece of fly calumny, without a icw additional remarks, (i) The caluni- niator himfelf has been plealed, in concert with his reverend auxiliary, to ftrip me of all pretenfions to the two-fold charader of the Chrifiian, and the GentUman, becaufe 1 prtfumed, forfooth, to p>re- fent Mr. Medley with a iQw ftr inures, founded on a report of the fevere and ludicrous things, he ad- vanced in his public difcourfes. Yet the very perfon, who abufes me for this limple circum- jftance, is guilty of a more condemnable retaliation. For, he publilhes a vague inlinuation, which I never once dropped either from the pulpit, or the prefs, and which my pamphlet, if ever publifhed, will fufFicientiy refute. I leave the public, there- fore, to determine, what name will beft fuit 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 ? Mufl Anti-trinitarians aifault the funda- mental INTRODUCTION, xl;^, mental dodrines of our Church, and publllh their errors from the pulpit and from the prefs? And fhall the friends of our excellent eftablirtiment, lilently and tamely behold fuch daring condud", and urge no remonftrance againfi: the innovators? —And fuppofe, that I iLould humbly attempt to obviafe 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, fa bj eel a man to a fufiiciency of odium? But mult P. make the world anticipate that odium, by pubiiihing an in- vidious rumor, which would reprelent me, not as a friend to truth, but as a pragmatic zealot? A[]d even, if I was ac^tually preparing an attack againft an heterodox Clergyman of the Church of Eng'and; will p. who pretends to reverence truth, virtually lide with the advocates for error, by publllLing a difapprobation of my condu6f ? Will he thus cringe to heterodoxy, in direct violation of the didlates of his conicience? The injury he does to my charac- ter, is trifling, when compared with the more material affront he, hereby, virtually gives to truth, itfelf. And what lliall we think of a man, who can thus fneakingly currifavor ? I believe, whenever poor P. takes up his pen, his confcience is forely agitated by his old dliordcr/thefpleen: 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 tcndernefs. When xlvl. INTRODUCTION. When I reflec?}: what prodigious attempts the renowned twin-difputants have made, in criticifm, tranjlation, &c. 1 am not furpnltd to iind, 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 claincal pop-guns, which he has loaded with a parcel of Latin and Greek rags j* and after al- moft exhaufting the plentiiul itock of his pedantry and abufe together, at laii draws breath, and con- defcends to promife his readers, *' ailertion with proof." After this ferious parade, we Ihould na- turally expe6f, that P.'s plenipotentiary would give us logical premieres, and a logical conclulion. For, thus this invincible reafoner prefaces his de- monftration. " Hold a Uttle, and it Ihall be affer- tion proved." And then, in a little firing of bor- rotved quatations, he tells us, what a few authors merely aflert concerning the mode of baptizing by immerfion. But, do thefe authors prove any thing upon the fubje6^ ? No ! Not one lingle quotation, he has brought, has the Icaft Ihadow of a proof. The whole firing confiiis of nothing but naked ajfertiojis ; fuch as *' To be baptized, is to be dip- ped into the water. — Baptifm, fignifies an immer- lion or walliing of the whole body." Thefe are this huge logician's ^roo/j / Alas I majier, for they are all borrowed too! Perhaps Mr. S, miftook the quantity for the quality of his quotations. Sup- pofmg that ten affertions were adequate to fo many * Purpureas late qui fpkndcat unus & alier, AJfidlur pannus — — — — .-. Hok. proofs, I NTRODUCTION. xl^ir. froofs, he draws his conclufion accordingly. But he ought to know, that ten thoufand naked alTer- tlons are not tantamount to one demonftration. What a pity, this mighty reafoner did not apply to ParmenaSy for a little of his logical aififtance I 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. 5. might have afiiftcd P. to conftruc a Latin fcntence, 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 hominem. Exempli gratia Suppofe I fay that Mr. 5". does not underftand the very firfl priyici-- ^les of logical reafoning. Does my bare affertirig this, ^rove that he is io confummately ignorant? No, certainly. But fuppofe 1 bring the opinions Qiien friends, who affert t\\tfame. Will not their ten af- fertiom, fuperadded to mine, amount to a proof f No. For the fame reafon that one bare alfertion fails of a proof, ten thoufand would. Then it re- mains to ht proved; thusj A man, who affirms that the bare affertions of others are fo many proof s^ cannot be acquainted with the very firft principles of logical reafoning : But Mr. Sandys has affirmed that the bare ajjer" tions of others are fo vn^iny proofs: Therefore Mr. S. cannot be acquainted with thcs very firji principles of logical reafoning. Q^E. D. How- xIvUI. INTRODUCTION. However our pofitlve al^erter fails in his mode of arguing in favor oi immerjion, his head is fo full of the darling topic, that his very abufivefimilitudes are drawn from- the idea of dipping. Hence in p. 1 8* " Give him a good found dipping, and try whether that will anfwer the end, &c." The dipper here propofes to fome of his brethren, who chufe to undertake the fcandalous office, that, like Mr. 5". who has fet them the bright example, they would imitate his delicate phrafeology. I muft do this po- liihed Gentleman the juftice to acknowledge, that, *' in fpite that can creep" he has not his fellow in the Kingdom 5 and that, if he is in future as fuccefsful a practitioner in dipping, as he now proves himfelf an adept in Tilifying, Anabaptifm could never boaft of fuch a dipper. But I hope there are few fuck Anabaptifts. For, Mr. 5". feems fo totally given up to all the blacknefs of malevolence, and darknefs of bigotry, that, like another Peleide^, one would imagine he had been dipped in the gloomy waters ofS'yx: only, with this difference, that, whereas the Gracian Hero, was not totally immerfed, and therefore not totally invulnerable, our Anabaptift Champion, feems to have been plunged in the Stygian wave, from the heel to the heady and this bitter baptifm feems to have Vpread" fuch an uni- verfal petrifa^ion throughout, that 1 know hardly a lingle part in him that is vulnerable. CoUld I but be fortunate enough, like the man who fo fucceff- fully drew his bow at a venture, to point an arrow of keen argument, or mild irony, between the joints of the harnefs, in which our adamantine Hero INTRODUCTION. xWn. Hero Is encafed, I might then hope to do feme execution. But hie labor ! hoc opus e/i ! I am not a markf-man fufficiently fkilful, to exped fach a phoenomenon. Who knows how fer a re-bapii~ zation might contribute towards difiolving the petrifaction of bigotry, and effrontery ! Suppofe Mr. 6\ would try that expedient. In that cafe I need not fuggeft that, any thing ihort of a " good Jound dipping'' all over, will be of any real utiUty. And then, fhould he, like the fnake renewing its fkin, caft his Jlough of ill-breeding, and drop his impenetrable armor of matchlefs effrontery, I fhall be glad to addrefs him, as a vulnerable an- tagonift ; while he himfelf will have reafon to rejoice in the happy metamorphofis, produced by fuch a bkft bathing-bout ! Before this Gentleman ! concludes his polite letter, which is big with mifrcprefentations, •f' he takes care to recite a little anecdote, which G comes f As a proof of this, I cannot avoid noticino; a piece of unparalleled mifreprcfentatiou, 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 Reply to Farmenas, I mentioned the circumflance of an Anabaptift objedling to the purchafe of Cdvins Injiitutes, becaufe that great Reformer de- fended Infant-Baptifm. S. prodigioufly enraged at the recital of a cir- cumftance, which gave an additional fpecimen of that bigotry, for which Anabaptifts in all their condu(3; are remarkable ; and laboring to evade the force of the charge, fays, that " the individual referred to did not know that ever fuch a perfon as Servetus had exifted." Nor did I infinuate he did ; or that he refufed to purchafe the book, becaufe Calviu oppofed Servetus, as an Anabaptift individual. So that all 5.'s abuCive complaints here, arife from mv having called Calvin's Defence of Infant-Baptifm, by a fort of periphrajis, " his Oppofition to Sirvctus, on the fubjeA of Anabaptifm." But 5. denies the fadt altogether, and fays his brother objedled to the purchafe " upon account of the pricf only." And yet he introduces him as querying whether Calvin was ortho- dox with refpedk to Infant-Baptifm. Without (laying to confider, how- far I INTRODUCTION. comes, from his malevolent pen, like a flab m the dark. A Clergyman ! it feems, faid to him (p. 46.) " Sir, you hurt the poor man, by careffing 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, (i) What he means by careffing-, and whether he gave a toleration to Mr. S. as to an officious fcribe, to publijh this bit of private inve(5^ive? li 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 fquibs in the hand of Mr. S, thereby manifeftly employing him as a fcribbling cat's- paw, I fliall treat the paw and the hand that ufes it, with equal indiiference. (2) When he fays, *' that he neither bleffed me at all, nor curfed me at all," I am to be fure, much obliged to this niodeft 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 furcly I have reafon far this ignorant qncr'ij} or his equally-ignorant vindicator are capable of arraigning the orthodoxy of fo great a Reforincr as " the bright taper of Geneva," I anfwer, the bookleller informed me that tiie modefl qticrijt '"had been looking at the book, but did not approve of Qihins fcnti- luents -with refpeift to Baptifm ; which he (the bookleller) fuppofcd was the occafion of his not purchafing it." And, for the truth of this, \vc appeal, not to the querift's " oath,'" but to his confiience. So that, con- fidering this ignorant Anabaptifl had never read Calvin on Infant-Eap- tifm ; yet prcfumed to arraign his orthodoxy ; and to refufe purchafing the Lijlitiites, though olTcred at a very yjioderatc price ; it fcems his grand latent objedlion was Cs/i'iw's oppofition to the ^/Ti7/ Dw;.iJ of Aniibaptifts. to INTRODUCTION. IL to expert the divine bleffing. And if God blefs, fo lliould the righteous. But the witholding a bleffing, by obferving a neutrality, is according to the determination of fcripture, equivalent to a virtual curfe. Balaam was fo ftruck with a fenfe of this, that, when the king of Moab wanted him, *' neither to curfe Ifrael at all, nor to blef: them at all," the prophet durft not obferve fuch a finful neutrality, but did emphatically blefs: them. So that from hence, it is plain, that the declaration of Mr. ^S.'s anonymous Clergyman rcfembles 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 ?}ian, whofe eyes were open. But, the truth is, I Ihrewdly fufpecft, 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, I am per- fedlly eafy about his "careffingsj" and beg Mr. Retailer would inform his imitator of Balak, that his curfes are, to me, juft as tremendous, as his blejjings are defirable. 1 would not, however, willi to infinuate, that I difregard the bleffings of God's people. So far from it, that I ffiall be thankful to the meaneft of his fervants, for their prayers and pious benedic- tions. But the blejfings of bigotry, which come from * See p. 124, of my Letter to a BcipliJI-M'tmJier. G 2 the Hi. INTRODUCTION. the donor's lips cold as ict; and the curfes of un- charitablenefs, which fly X\kG fparks from \\\tfire of infernal zeal; are equally the obje6ls of my in- difference and contempt. If any perfons will hear- tily blefs me in my minif^erial work, I will as heartily thank them. And if they will even curfe me, pofitively, or neutrally, Balak-like ; I hope I fhall be enabled to give them nothing but blej/ings in return. But, whether I am an object of poll- tive maledictions, pofitive blefTmgs, or bigoted neu- trality, I trult I fhall f^ill undauntedly perfevere, in the flrength of divine grace, to vindicate truth j and to approve myfelf in the eye of Him, who judgeth not as manjudgeth* THE THE REJOINDER, &c. CHAP. I. The author vindicates himfdf and his friends, from Mr. M.'s groundlefs charges and illiberality of low abufe proves that the declaration, attefted by ten Anabaptijis, is tantamount to an indire^^ CHALLENGE and cxpo/iulates with the "se- vere opposer" on his irreverent mode of attack- ing Infant-Baptifm from the pulpit, and on his indelicate manner of abufing certain " endowed'* ecclefiafiics from the prefs. Kev. Sir, I Am glad you have, at laft, condefcended to favor me with an anfwer to my Findication of Infant-Baptifm; as well as to the Stri(^ures, I took the liberty of making on the occaiion and circumftances of your late vilit to Shrewfhury. Hitherto, I have been engaged in fome flight /kir- millies, with a brace of controvertifts, whofe feeble efforts refemble water fquirted againft the wind, which returns upon the fqulrter's own face, with a more violent repercufhon. I rejoice therefore, that you have taken the controverfial fword out of the hands of Meflrs. Farmenas and Sandys ^ whom, ( 54 ) whom, for diftlniftion-fake, I fiyle the twin-dif' putantSf becaufe of their prodigious refemblance 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 expedations, antecedently to the a61ual appear- ance of your intended publication. The menacing intimations of your private letter ; * the compli- mentary innuendos of your Salopian auxiliaries, and of your warm friend in Birmingham ; added to the prominbry pomp of your long-advertifed title-page j all tended to excite my curioiity, and to increafe my longings for a view of the formi- dzhlc Jlieet- anchor. 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 Ihall never, in future, pay the fmalleft ferlous 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, know the hilt from the point, let them use it." Language this, fuch as one might have expected from a man bluftering on a quarlcr-dcck, or from a vaunting pr'ize-pghtcr ; but fuch as comes Ti-ith no fort of grace from one, whole profeflion is that of a Minifter of the Prince of peace ; and, who, in various inflances, docs not hiwfelf lamo the hilt of the controverG.a.1 fivord fro>n the point. It were much to be wifhed, that this vauiiting Gentleman were better acquainted wi£±L the extent of his own abilities; and that he may, I earncRly recommend tov Lis ferious fludy, the fentiment contained in that celebrated adi/ge ytuOi, erictvlov. 'Till he makes a conflderable improvement in the im- portant ftudy, it is more than probable, he will never wholly relinquilh his (balknglng dialed; which at prefcnt, fecms fo familiar to him, almoft cpoo e\'ery occafion. the ( So ) the long-expe61ed piece of artillery, Is by no meairs 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, undifmayed, into the very mouth of this controverlial cannon, and ftand, unhurt, the whole iTiock. of its difcharged contents. For, ab- ftrat?led from the widenefs of its orifice, and the loudneis of its roar, it is tox et fneterea nihil! And, if this be the tremendous piece of ordnance that Is to give a " a broad-fide" to Pcedobaptifm, ' and to do fuch prodigious execution amongft its advocates J I'm afraid, the iflue will prove, tha£ there is as wide a difference between faying and accompUJJiivg this, as between the mere noife of declamatory vociferation, and the powerful ener- gy of clofe reafoning. And, as a fhip, by aiming too precipitate and too vehement a broad-fide againft an enemy, fometimes finks herfelf, by that very atft which intended deftru6^ion to the contrary fide; {o, it may perhaps turn out, that fome of Mr. M.'s " broad-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 titk, 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 intitle your piece " Intem- perate Zeal reproved, and Chriftian Baptifm defended," you ( 56 ) you take two things for granted, which I am un- willing to allow, and which you have not proved. For (i) that I have a ** zeal" againft Anabaptifin and againft fome of its bigoted advocates, 1 rea- dily acknowledge 5 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 recoiled^, 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 interefled in/ As I look upon myfelf, to be deeply interefted in the caufe of truth, I therefore burn with a zeal againfi: error, which, not all the floods of calumny, I trufl, fhall ever be able to extinguilh, or even damp. Now, Sir, as I verily believe you to be under the influence of errorj 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 flriking a fcriptural blow at Anabaptifm ; in order, that, when the principal prop was fliaken, the fabric, it fupported, might receive a fliock 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 efliraa- tion 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 caujlic to eat away the proud fungous flelli, which grows from the gan- grene ( 57 ) grene of bigotryj and In the application, may have touched a tender part in Mr. Af j hence this great out-cry agalnft the " ijitemperance" 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 Anabaptifis in general ; all your heavy charges, on this part of the lubjed, 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 obfcrve, that, before you had engaged in the friendly officCj you fliould have waited a full year at leaft, 'till your own zeal had cooled a little of its effervcf- cence. Forj I. allure you, fome perfons think, it has blazed away fo much in the ^-owf^-ftyle, that we fhould not be furprifed, if another mildtr phaeno- menon w^ere to make its appearance, intitled by- Mr. M.'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 ^ fubftltute deferted. In that cafe, although the mifiake might have adminiftered not a little mor- * Mr. Baxter's excellent obfervation, refpedting the Anabaptifis of his day, is (IricSlly 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 h'm for an enemy, if not & perfecuter, that told them the truth." H tificatlon C 58 ) tification to the defender, yet it would have com- municated a real truth to the public. 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. alTert, that, to rejeift the Baptifm of Believers' Infant -{Q^d, and to fub- flitute Adult-Dipping in its room, is to defend Chriftian Baptifm? Docs he alfo inlinuate, that the ordinance can be effedlually adminiftered, only by a total immerfion ? 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- tifls ? Are all the numerous communities of gof- pel profelTors to be unchurched and virtually un- chrWianed, by Mr. Af.'s uncharitable dogma? As thefe inlinuatlons are difplayed in the very front of his publication ; it Ihall be my bufinefs, to prove them as deftitute of truth, as they are replete with audacious bigotry. — As to the furreptitious motto, for which you are indebted to my tra6\ on true and falfe zeal, 1 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 " aivakcned,'* bccaufe his fervid " party has been touched in a tender points' and I dare fay the electrical fhock, which < 59 ) which has roufed his latent ire, will " fly like lightning through the whole fraternity j" If I may judge from the fplrit of three eletflrical gentle- men, who have already favored, me with addreffes. To all fuch I earneftly reconimend Jelms Looking- Glafs ; hoping, that the hideous caricature of bigotry reprefented in that little mirror, will deter our modern Jehus from inliftingas volunteers under her fiery banner : and, as I never met with an individual, who outftrips tlie 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 tranftent peep, left he Ihould ** ftraightway forget, what manner of perfon- he is." After forming a fort of poor parody on my in- trodudion, you proceed to open the orifice of your formidable piece of ordnance. It's firft dif- 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 infidious tale-hearers " which epithet, according to your wonted abulivc tautology, is twice repeated again in the fpace of a few lines. The fame perfons you go on in the fame page, to fiyle " detefted informers, Jie ale rs-^'* me you rank among the '* ready and greedy tale- hearers, and tale-receivers.'^ In p. 5, the vehement roar is continued agalnft my friends, whom, in a little variation of your tautological inve61:ive, you call *' whining, religious bufy-bodies, backbiting tale- bearers, religious firebrands, incendiaries, Salopian H 2 budget- ( 6o ) ludget-hearers of faljhoods and mifreprefentations, p, 13 :" while to confummate the whole of this abu- iive fhock, you call me, *' a precipitate, raJJi, hot- headed young man," throwing out " plenty of back-: biting falJJwods, 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 with all this cramhe repetita, reiterated hotch-potch of low abufe? Is it the fimple 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 httlc, 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 jufHy reprehenfible, where there is no dclign of mifre^ prefentation. Upon looking over the prefatory apology to Mr. Baxters '* Plain Scripture-Proof of Infants' Cluirch-memberJIiip and Bapiifm," I find, that, preparatory to his public difpute at Bewdley, with 'M.r.Tomhes, the Anabaptift, he commiiTioned fome perfons to take down notes of Mr. Tl'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 diale(5l Mr. M. has ac- cofled us. Thixs far the Anabaptift o( Liverpool has excelled his brother oi Bewdley ; but, whether it be fuch a fuperior excellence as redounds to the credit of the former, the reader is to judge. — If ( 6i ) It be a crime fo very heinous, to take down and animadvert on public declamations ; then what Ihall we ftyle the notaries^ that attend the houfes of parhament, and communicate either memoriter, or by Ihort-hand notes, the principal excerpia 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, Iniidious 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, willaffe6t all the notaries of public decla- jTiation In the world; while his complimentary invecSlIve againft me, ultimately falls on his own head. — When heftyles my friends " infidious" tale- bearers, he either does not underfland the mean- ing of his own abufive phrafcology, or. If he does, he Inlinuates, that they had meditated a deligned plot againft him, in which I might have had an infidiGm hand; an Inlinuatlon, as falfe, as it is injurious. They went asferious, not ivfidious hear- ers. But, being grievoufly difappointed, they could not help expreffing their difappointment; the ground of which, 1 have animadverted on before the public. II. In a mifapplled note, p. 6, which you have borrowed from my tracB: on true and falfe zeal, you inlinuate, that " prejudice, envy , flander , pride, jea- loufy, &c." actuated my friends In reporting, and we, in publilhing the extrads from yourfermon. But C 62 ) But here permit me, to obferve, that the fa<5t which I condemn m your quotation, refpe or to harangue on his favorite topic j 1 would advife him to preferve in his mind the idea of the compaffionate Jesus v/ceping over bloody Jeru- Jaleni; — oi Abraham, importunately pleading in all the reverence and pathos of fervent prayer, in be- half of Sodom and Gomorrah ; — of M&fes, m a folejna appeal to heaven and earth, calling God, angels and men to record againft a rebellious people; — ^. oi Jonah, crying to the impenitent Nifieviles, with all the earneflnefs of a man, who preaches for eter- nity-,— oijohn the Baptift, lifting up his voice like a trumpet in the wildernefs, and, in language, rough as his clothing, fliarp 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 himfelf with fuch cogency of perfuaiive argument, and ■ folemnity of faithful addrefs, as to make even Agrippa himfelf an almo/i-chriflian, and to excite horror in the feared confcience of an avaritlous and adulterous Felix y — I fay, if Mr. M. will but preferve in his mind, the idea of thefe perfonages, thus engaged in their refpedive exerciles of reve- rential prayer, compaflionate addrefs, and folemn declamation, I dare fay it will tend greatly to prevent the intrulion of every light and irreve- rent thought; confequently will refcue his didion 1 from ( 6C ) from tlie frotli of jocular phrafeology ; will In- troduce a becoming awe into his fermons and prayers; and will prefcrve the ordinances of God from that levity, which makes them fometimes :^efemble a comic entertainment more than an- awful intercourfe with heaven, ■f- Thus, Sir, you have virtually neceiTitattd me to drop a few lalutary hints, that very intimately concern you, as a preacher of the gofpel. This I fliould have avoided out of tendernefs to yourfelf, had you not by a variety of bold interrogatories, •virtually called upon me to declare, that, though 1: did not hear you on dipping, I did on other fub- je6^s: and, that from the fpecimen I then had of your manner, I can conceive, the half was not told me refpecling your humorous declamations on- your darling topic. However, from the informa- tion of my friends, I take the liberty to expoftulate with you before the public, as I did, in a private letter you received from me. " You fecm ex- ■\ Jcro7n gives an admirable piece of advice to tliofe v.'ho miniftcr in holy things. Docentc in ecclcfui tc, non clj\.motl- populi, fl-d gemitus fufc',^ tciur : lachrymte anditornm Iniidcs tu£ fniit. On which, the word» of good Mr. Baxter, will form a fort of excellent paraplirafb. " I know- not how it is with other perfons, but the moft reverent preacher, who fj^ealcs a.s though he J aw the face of God, does more aiTcdl my heart, than an jrrK^rent man, with the moft accurate preparations, though lie latvl it out with much feeming enmcflnfjl. \i revereiiee be not equal t^ fervency, it has but little efixifl. Of all preaching in the world, I hate that moft, which tends to make the hearers laugu ; or to afiecT: their minds, with fuch levity, as Jfcge-flrys io, inftcad of affeiTting them with an holy reverence of the name of God. We fliould fuppofe', (as it >vere) when we draw near him in holy things^ that we faw the throne t>f God, and tlie millions of glorious angels attending him, that we maybe awed with his majefty; \c^ yvc prophmie Km fervice, and take his name in vahi." B.J.xlcr's Refcraied Faftor, abridged, p. io2. cecdingly ( 67 ) Gocdin-gly warm, from a fuppoHtion that I have inilreprefented you; becaufc in my letter to Mr. P. (as well as in my Ldtsr to a Baptift-Minifier,) I fay you " held up thojc minifitrs who differ from you, in a ludicrous point of view." And 1 fay fo i-lill. Sir. Let your own ludicrous animadvcrlions tef- tify. Did you not allv your audience (with a defign to ridicule the difpenfcrs of baptifm by atfufion) whether " the j^mA7/;z^ their pots and cups w^ould clcanfe them ?" Did you not fay, that thofe who do not praciife immerfion, " only bap- tize the ends oi ihtli' fingers f" Did you not ridi- cule the cuftom of fending for a miniiier to bap- tize a £ck child? And did not the cenfure, which affe61s the parents, confequently alTecff the officiat- ing minifter? Did you not even defcend fo low, as to ridicule thofe prints^ which reprefent the Baptift 3.S pouring the baptifmal water on Christ? Did you not feverely animadvert on a part of the office for baptifm in the Church of Englandf — Now, Sir, although, in thefe witticifms, you mentioned no jniniiier's name, yet furely you ri- diculed their office. So that, when you repre- fented baptifm by affalion, as fimilar to the *' fprinkling of pots," or as nothing more than *' baptizing the ends of the fingers," did you not indlrev^ily " hold up, in a ludicrous point of view, thofe miniflers, who diifcr from you?" Indeed you did. Sir. And I appeal to your ov/n candor, whether all your loud complaints of mifreprefen- tation are not Iheltered under an evafivc diftinc- lionj between ridiculing miniilcrs' perfim, and 1 2 bantering ( 6^ ) bantering their 77iode of difpenling baptlfm. I fancy, if 1 had introduced your peculiarities inta the pulpit, and had kidicroufly expatiated on the fcene exhibited at the Abbey -Fore gate Bath; you would have thought yourfelf " held up in a lu- dicrous point of view," though I never mentioned the name of P4r. M. or the word miniiter 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-Baptlfm, and would en- gage to anfwer all that Ihould be faid on the fubje6i.'' As he favored me with no reply to my letter, 1 looked upon his filence as a fort of tacit ccknoivkdgment of the declaration ; and, in my Reply to Parmenas, took the liberty to expofe this pompous mode of introducing virtual challenges into the facred deik. His friends, zealous for the honor of their champion, and looking upon my i^ri^ures as a dreadful mifreprefentation, feem to have called a ferious meeting, in order to vindi- cate their friend, and to atteft his innocence. Accordingly, his poflfcript exhibits a lift of ten Anabaptifts, with the in:;portant Mr. Sandys at the head, who declare Mr M. never gnvefuch a chal- lenge, and fubfcribe their names to this attefted declaration. Now, although the pompous poftfcript Isauthen-- tlcated by the names of thefe Anabaptiji Decemviriy and particularly graced with the fignature of a Re- vennd Decemvir; yet I will take upon me to prove, qycn from the acknowledgments of the attefiing juntOy^ ( 69 ) junto, that Mr. M. did give a virtual challenge to Poedobaptifts ; and that the flyle of it is tanta- mount to a dechration, that " he would anfwer whatever fliould be laid on the fubje6i of Infant- Baptifm." Let us take an attentive view of the ATTESTED CHALLENGE. '•' If the Poedobaptifts will prove their pra6lice ** from the word of God, (.which in my humble ** opinion they never yet have done,) I will atten- *' tively and impartially el ad, -v/hatever they '■' (N. B.) may produce : and ii they convince me *' from the fcripture, that Infant-Sprinkling is *' Gofpel-Baptifm, 1 ! Samuel Me d l e y ! do " pledge myft/f io make a public rccdnla ion oi my ** prefent opinion, from the pulpit and the preJs,. " and to become a zealous dcjaider of infant-Lap-- *' tifm, wherever 1 am, and as long as I live.'^ Witnefs, &c. Now, in oppofition to this, I might urge, the declaration of a refpe<51able £)///?;5^ct, whole iiiTgle teftimony, both in point of veracity and recollec-- tion, 1 deem more than a counter-ballance to the attcfted acknowledgment of the Anabaptili De- cemviri. The perfon referred to, declares, thst to the befi: of his recollecfion (and he thinks his. yecoliedion could not fail him, for he liftened with uncommon attention to the vv'hole of this,' vaunting hiatus} Mr. M. did tot idem verbis *' pledge himfelf to anfwer all that Ihould be faid on the fubjeif of Infant-Baptifm." But, waving his teftimonv, thouo-h I think It equally authentic with that of the attejers them-. ielves,. ( 73 ) i'elves, I am willing to abide by the ftyle of the declaration itfelf. i That it is to all intents, a challenge, will, I believe, appear obvious at the firii iight, to any perfon of candor and difcernment 9 but more fo, if wc confider the exacSt analogy be- tween the tenor of the declaration and Dr. yohn- Jms definition of the word challenge. " To challenge' (i:iys the eminent lexicographer) " is to r^// ano- ther to anfiver for an ojfence by combat." Mr. M. thinks Infant-Baptifm an " offence'' 2.'^2.mi{ fcriu- ture : He " calk" on modern Foedobaptifls from the pulpit " to anfwer" for this offence, as he inti- mates that their brethren, in former times, '* never have proved their practice from the word of God:" and he virtually calls upon them to do this in controverfial "■combat" by ''producing" their defeniive proofs j which can only 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, ^yhether the latter does not carry with it the ap-. pearance of a pulpit-challenge. 2 That Mr. M. did virtually pledge himfelf to anfwer v/hatever Ihould be faid by Pcedobaptifts, will appear, if we confider (1) That heafierts they *' never have" hitherto " proved their pra^r^ice from the word of God j" confequently that thofe, who have never done this, may be ealily anfivered: (2) That, as they have hitherto failed, he calls upon them, to prove their pra61:ice now ; which, by a fneering insinuation, implies, (notwithftand- ing his affeded pretenfions to impartiaUty,) that they C 7^ > fhey would be as fuccefsful in future as hereto-- fore J and therefore as QdiiAy anfivered. (3) That " whatever they may produce" (another mode- of challenging them to do it) he would condefcend to " READ." Is not this a virtual calling upon them to PUBLISH ? (4) That, U '' convinced" by their arguments, he " pledges" himfelf to make a public recantation, from the pulpit and the prefs;. although, by the fpeclmen he has already given us, we may ealiiy judge, how acceffible he is to convidion, and how much difpofed to make a public recantation. Now, I only alk any perfon of candor and Im- partiality, if for a pulpit-orator to throw out in- nuendos concerning " whatever" Poedobap- tifts " MAY produce" be not a virtual fummons^, or a fpecles of chalhige to the field of controverfy. And, if this fame perfon, declares, by a folemn pledging of his important I! S. M! that, if con- vinced, he will publilh his recantation ; 1 Ihould be glad to know, what we are to fuppofe he would do, when all our arguments are lo/i upon him. Does his declaration imply, that he would only *' read whatever we may produce f" and that he would never attempt., at lea ft, 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 conviriced of the fcripture-ground of Infant-Baptifm; fo, ii not con- vinced, he would adopt fome public mode of de~ daring his oppofition. For, I repeat it again j we can never fuppofe, without flying in the face of recent C 12 ) recent faBs, that Mr. M. would be only a filent reviewer of our fcntiments. Let the religious buf- foonery, with which, though unprovoked, he late- ly attacked Infant-Baptifm, and the dogmatic af- furance, wherewith he exalted Anabaptifin, bear witnefs, how far our productions 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 exprejp.y, according to the information of my friend, or tacitly, according to the face of the attefted declaration, fay he would engage to anfwer whatever Ihould be urged by Poedobap-' tifis. VI. And now, Sir, permit me to expoftulate with you once more, upon a review of your con- du61. Do you really think, that your late manner of treating your ditfering brethren, is ftrictly de- fenlible? Is It confident with decency, to fcatter abroad your little ludicrous witticifms, when you are engaged in the folcmnities of public worlliip ? Does it betray any genuine modejiy, to deliver vourfelf v/ith fuch doQ;matic coniidcnce, on a lub- ]tdi, which you do not feem fufficiently to under- liand ? And is it any mark of fclf-dijjidence, to conclude with fuch peremptorinefs, that Poedo- baptlfts " never have yet proved their praBice from God's word T' Are you a competent judge of the merits of the controverfy, to be able to determine a point, which Anabaptiiis of much fuperior abl- lllics, have found fo very difBcult to prove? Or do you fuppofe that your mere affirmation is to weigh C 73 ) weigh heavier, than the arguments of " ten men that can render a reafon ?" If you muft give your opinion, refpe61ing your own peculiarities j can't you do this, without exhibiting the contrary fide in all the parade of ludicrous declamation ? Is the facred deac a proper place for fuch exhi- bitions? Is the celebration of a folemn ordinance, a time, proper for fuch levity ? And Ihould a promifcuous audience, conlifling perhaps of pro- phane more than profeiTors, be eye and ear-wit- neffes to fuch trifling irreverence ? Is it the part of modejiy, candor, ^olitenefs or moderation, after roundly alTerting, that Poedobaptifls 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, js it any mark of ingenuity, or ppennefs to con- viction, 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 manifeftly implies the fentiment, I have expofed ? Suppofe, Sir, that I had been invited to Liver- fool, as you have been lately, to Shrewjbury: That all the inhabitants of Liverpool, (a few only excepted) were Jnabaptijs ; and that Pxdohaptifls there, like your brethren in this town, were Dijfenters : — That, upon accepting the invitation, I had taken an 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 ) fclf of a double occafion, to ridicule the fentr- ments and ordinances of the eftablithment : — That I had, in a chifter of low limlles, ridiculed the Ana- baptlfts for'maklng their " watery grave" eirential baptifrn : — That I had, with a low fneer, afkcd, in a public ordinance, whether the '* wrapping their pots " and cups in cloths, and then putting them '•' under water, would be a more probable mode *" of clcanfing 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- ed j as if they deemed immerlion elfential to falva- tion : — Suppofe I had proceeded farther, roundly to affirm that " Aiiabaptifts had never yet proved their practice from the word of God;" that I gave them a virtual challenge to '^ jjrcduce" fomething from the prefs, and that I would take upon me to anfwer the produclion : — Suppofe, Sir, I fay, that I had conducted myfelf thus, in the delivery of my public difcourfes, and at the adminiftratioa of the ordinance of baptifm; in what an unaml- able light muft I have appeared, to the candid and judicious, either as 2i preacher or an adminijirator ! What would the world have thought of me? What! but that I went to Liverpool^ only to exhibit a little pulpit-buffoonery, in order to make one part of my hearers laugh: — What would the Fo^do- haptifis have thought of me? What! but that I had ftrangely forgot my errand ^ that, inrtead of preaching Chri/i and him crucified, I had only de- signed to preach fdf; and that, inftead of urging the ■■^t^iL' ( 75 > the " one baptifm,*' I wanted to amufe tliem with a little dry declamation on cold ivater. — What would' the Clergy of Liverpool 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 ttiat I meant to fill their heads with doubts, their united affemblies with confufion, and their differing brethren with contemptible bigotry. Yea, what would Mr. M. himfelfhave thought? What! but that, rellnquilli- ing the catholicifm of the man of moderation, and the pacific tendernefs of the chrijiian, I had taken a long journey to give him a virtual injult in his own neighbourhood. But even this mode of reprefenting, mutatis mutandis, the difingenuiiy of Mr. M's condu6f, does not take in all the fubfequent aggravations in it. For, belides attempting a vindication, he has now informed us, that we are totally miftaken in the mode of adminifiering baptifm. Thus dogma- tizes Mr. Medley. •' I fiill think, that none of the " minif^ers in the ef^abliflied church, or among " the dilTenters, do adminif^er baptifm in a/crip- '* tural manner." — If our Poedobaptifl brethren are atfedfed by this gentleman's thoughts, in the fame manner with myfelf, they will deem them as remote from truth, as they are from modefty ; and will naturally expe^f annual vifits from the thinker himfclf, fmce he holds fo very cheap all the unfcriptural adminif^rators of baptifm, in Shreivf- bury. However, as fecond thoughts are bcfl, and K 2 as ( 76 ) as the wlfeft of men have feen the utility of them; who knows but Mr. M. may think differently in the year 1-777 ? At leaft, one would fondly hope, that he would think, and preach, and write, a little more modestly. For, if the fpace of feveral months, and another export ulatipn from the prefs, do not produce fuch a deiirable change, I know v/hat fomebody will think; liz: that bigotry is a thick cloud impervious to every ray of light; that effrontery is a coat of mail impenetrable by the keeneft arrows of argumentative reproof; and that fome people's thoughts, like the reveries of one in a dream, are deftitute of regularity, foUdity, and truth. Yll. Not content with dogmatizing on Poedo- baptifm, he abufes fome P(£dobdptifis, in a ffrain, which by an unhappy fatality, involves the abufer himfelf in a reverberating cenfure. Having in my Letter to a Baptift-Miiiijier, dropped the moft can- did declaration, refpeding Dijfenters, and the hap- py privileges they poffefs under the wing of a *' gracious toleration^' inftead of improving this declaration to my honor, he, on the contrary, avails himfelf of an occalion to accoft me with an addrefs, that contains in it fuch per/onality of abufe, a,s charaderizes neither the gentleman nor the chriftian. Having in p. 8, advertifed the reader of my *' advancement! to the Vicarage of St. Alk- mond's," he renews and expatiates on the adver- tifement in p. 10 ; 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, that the latter Is •* endowed with, fat livings, to! puff up the pride " of certain Vicars, that! they may defpife their " unendowed brethren. 1 think" (pray mind; thefe are his thoughts for 1776; but perhaps he may alter them, at fome future lucid interval i) ** it muft naturally occur'* (in confequence of a natural bright thought) *' to a difcerning reader" (but where Ihall we find readers as difcerning as the THINKER?) "acquainted with all the circum- *' ftances" (a myfterious innuendo, which I 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 thinker's amazing pen) " the humble Curate of Shaw- *' bury was to the prieftly* (an erratum for proud) " Vicar of St. Jlkmond's !" Here I might leave our amazing thinker, peace- ably to enjoy his thoughts for the prefent A, D. were it not that I think it poffible he may, even before the prefent year is elapfed, either change his thoughts, or at leaft the coarfe phrafeology, that cloathes them. For this reafon I will fpend a few jftridures on a palTage, which feems to be the re-- fult of profound cogitation, (i) When Mr. M, fays, that the *' only difference between DiiTent- ers and the Church oi England, is, that the latter is endowed;" does not his cogibundity, here, take a nodf For if that were the only difference, I fliould not now be writing againll him as an oppugner of Infant-Baptifm. (2) Though fome of the livings ia * And the mUah once, upon another occalion. C 7^ ) in the Church of England are ^^fat," yet there are numbers of them very lean ; the incumbents of which endure as great, jf not much greater hardlhips, than many unendowed Anabaptifts. (3) That large emoluments ahufed " puff up the pride" offome eccleliaftics, is too notorious to be denied. But that our Church is endowed " to!" augment their pride, is juft as good fenfe and found trurh, as to fay, that " Anabaptifm is un- endowed, to! enhance the humility of certain Anti- poedobaptifts." (4) That our Church is endowed *' that! certain Vicars may dejpife their unen- dowed brethren," is an e7id, which the original endowers themfelves as much thought of, as that our unendowed thinker would ever fabricate fuch invidious nonfenfe. (5) When Mr. M. would in- iinuate, that certain eccleliaftics on corpulent be- nefices (which I'm fare, thus far, happens not to be my cafe) are puffed up with pride, and with contempt of their brethren ; he feems 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 expanfion againft Dijfenters. But here Mr. iW.'s pencil draws a caricature, which exifts only in his frighted imagination, EccJeJiafiical en- dowment is not the monfter, he would reprefent it ; nor does it naturally engender thofe twln- iifters, contempt and pride. There are many cji- dowed fons of our Church, v;hofe humility, and refpefl for differing brethren, are extremely con- fpicuous. ( 79 ) fplcuous. * And, permit me to obferve, that I myfelf know fome unendoived individuals, who allume a greater air of feh'-importance, defpotic church-authority, vifible elation of fpirit, and ap- pearance of pomp, than many whom Mr. 7l The third and laft puff is, that the regula- rity aforefaid will " redound mofl to the edifica- tion of the body of Chrift." This is the finilfiing ftroke to that pompolity of language which dif- tinguilhes all our author's commendations of his favorite ( 119 ) favorite mode. How dipping can contribute tp the edijiication of the body of Chrift, 1 muft own, I am not able to find out : nor indeed can I per- ceive the fmallefl connexion between dipping and edifying ; except in the jinghng termination of the words. The whole of our author's lucubration upon this fubjed refembles " a fun-beam and cloud conneded with bands of ftnoke." If the reader chufe to fee, how widely his fentiments dilTer from thofe of fcripturc, 1 beg he would confult Col. n. ii; being fully perfuaded, that the iffue of this fcrutiny will terminate in a full con- vicflion, that the elfentiality of dipping contributes to the edification of the body of Chrift juil 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) Is it not the great delign of the Head of the church, that " there lliould be no fchifm 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? (2) Are not the reception of evangelical truth and the exercife of brotherly love the two elTen- tial bonds of communion, by which all the mem- bers of Chrift are joined together in the fame body ? (3) As thefe bonds of communion derive their efTence, exertion, and continuance, from the Spirit of Chrifl, by whofe divine agency the whole body of the church is animated and en- livened ; ( I20 ) livened; are not therefore all the children of God, of every denomination under Heaven, fharers in this general fellowlhip ? (4) Do not the different degrees of honor and ufefulnefs, which the members refpedively polTefs in the human body, and the union fubfifting be- tween them, illuflrate that diverlity of official honor between particular members of Chrift's myftical body, and the harmonious connexion, by which they are blended together in one ? (5) Is this communion any more deftroyed by the various differences hi non-effentials among chrif- tian denominations, than the union in the human body, is interrupted by the different Jize, pofttioTii or clothing of its feveral members ? (6) When the Lord's people agree in effentlal truth i is it not contrary to fcripture, 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 with a form, or without one ? (7) Since the innumerable infirmities, connect- ed with man's prefent ftate of imperfe^ion, ren- der it impoffible that there fhould be a perfect and univerfal agreement in matters of doubtful dif- putation ; do not thofe, who feparate from, and judge their differing brethren, by that very a»5t of reparation, lay a virtual claim to infallibility ? (8) Since C 121 ) (8) Since neither an agreement In externals will fave, nor adiiference in them, deflroy a man; Ihould not profefTors of every denomination re- folve to think and lei think, on thofe difputablc non-ellentials ? (9) Where profefTors 'differ about the externals of an ordinance, or the particular mode of dif- penling it; fhould this be any reafonable bar to Chrijiian communion? (10) If God himfelf vouchfafe to admit his peo- ple to fellowfhip with him, notvvithftanding their numerous failings and imperfedions; ought not profellbrs to imitate his gracious condefceniion? And, ihould not thofe, who will fit down together at the marriage-fupper of the Lamb, unite upon earth. In a facramental prelibation of that eternal feaft of love ? (n) Since Anabaptifts mak.e dipping fuch an important affair, as to renounce communion with thofe, who do not think it efTentlal in the adrnl- Iiiflration of baptifm ; do they not hereby vifibly difown the excellent of the earth, and rejei51 thofe whom Chrift hath received? (12) When fuch a comparative trifle can make nicn 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 ? (13) Since therefore Anabaptifm raanifei^ly tends to nurture divifions ; to interrupt the harmony of God's united people; to unchurch every Poedobap- tift community of Chriftians upon earth; and to Q^ ' deftroy ( 122 ) deftroy 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 Anabaptifis, who feparate from^ and unchurch their brethren, for that, which is neither in whole nor in part necelTary to falvation^ give a fad proof, that they are fo far a(?tuated by the narrow fpirit of a party, and not by the gene- rous motives o{ candor and brotherly love? (15) Ahhough, by thofe plauHble Jnlinuatlons and low artifices, peculiar to a party -fpirit, they may gain over profelytes to dipping ; is it proba- ble, that a profelytifm founded on fuch a watery bajis, will promote the glory of God, or contri- bute to the fpiritual welfare of the inveigled profe- lytes themfelves ? 7 trow not, (16) Is it to be wondered, that the very fame fpirit of fchifm which urges a feparation from all other Chriftians upon earth, Ibould operate flrong- ly among the Anabaptifts themfelves ; and lay the foundation of thofe intefline divifions, for which they, as a people, are moft remarkable? (17) While therefore they lay claim to a fupe- rior degree of purity, both in doctrine and difci- pline, above all their brethren ; how comes it to pafs, that they agree fo little among themfelves ? ' Have they not reafon to fufpecSt, that the bigotry, which they exercife towards others, lies deeply at the bottom of thofe jealoulies, which diftraft and divide fome of their own congregations ? Does not: this leaven need to be purged out from among them? (18) Have ( 123 ) (i8) Have Anabaptifts a fcrlptural 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 Chrift Jcjus, and members of his church at large? Are they not at liberty to attend the ordinances, wherever they think proper ? And have bigoted difciplinarians 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 peoplej and of exerciling dominion over their faith? (19) Though, by difingenuous means juftly de- teftable by every generous mind, the Anabaptifts may increafe the number of their profelytcs; yet is this any proof that their church is the more truly fiorijliing? 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- lianity ? And that, if fome of the warm advocates for Anabaptifm, were diverted of their attach- ment to cold water, they would be rtript of their great all? (20) Since Mr. Af. has now aggrandized dip- ping fo highly, as to make it "essential ta the obedience of faith ," lliould he not either in- form us, whether the refl of his brethren are of the lame mind ? or clfe, upon a declaration of their dijjent, and a convidion of his error, lliould he Q_2 not ( 124 ) hot adopt the mortifying alternative of publilhing his recantation of the exceptionable expreffion, and of the falfe dodrine couched under it ? He cannot reafonablj^ obje^l to this propofal, lince, in the attefied challenge, he has himfelf proclaimed his readinefs to recant ; and that publicly too, whenever his errors ihould appear to him, re- futed by fcripture. 1^21) But if our author, through the predomi- nancy of ignorance, prejudice and legality, fhould flill perfevere in maintaining the ejfentiality of dipping; ought not his brethren, to relcue Ana- baptifm from the juft cenfure, it has incurred through his blundering pen? and to enter 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- iiifters of Chri/i to cry aloud to profelTors, in the cautionary language of St. Paul. " Beware of (catabapijm) the concision?" Phil, lii. 2. C H A ( 125 ) CHAP. ill. Some ftr inures on Dr. Stennett'^ confining the idea of dipping to the word baptize. His Tirtual charge of cur " departing from the authority ofChnik, and " opening the door to a thoufand innovations, of " dangerous confequence,'' retorted and refuted. ■ il'fr.M/^7770c/€'c/' RIDICULING HIS BRETHREN, expofedi and his attempts to evade the force of my former firidures on that head, proved to be dejiitutc of truth and fair repreftntation. Some prelimi- naries ftated, refpediing the mode of baptifm. AS my addrefs to Mr. M. upon a former occalion, was intended principally to con- lider the fubjeiis of baptifm -, I therefore fpent the lefs time in vindicating the mode of that inftltu- tion. Having never feen. any formal treatife, upon this inferior part of the controverfy, either pro or con ; my obfervations were the concife and natural refult of fcrlpture-inquiry. Since my late publication, however, I have had an opportunity of reviewing the fentiments of other Poedobaptifts; as well as of examining the opinions of fome of the moft renowned advocates for the effentiality 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, 1 muft fay, that however 1 may refpe(^ the latter of thefe two gentlemen, as a perfon C 126 ) pcTfon of piety and learning ; yet, his arguments, particularly in favor of immerlion, appear to favor more of the plaufibillty of fmooth addrefs, than of the folidity of conclulive reafoning; and, when he is pleafed to flyle our mode of adminiflering the ordinance by fprinkling or pouring of water, a " fuppofititious kind of baptifm, *" we think the Doctor's inlinuation equally deftitute of can- dor and truth. I. If Anabaptifts v/ere content with maintain- ing their particular mode, only as the favorite hcidge of their party, without inlifting on it as the ejjence of the facrament; our controverfy would be inftantaneoufly 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 " only fignifies dipping ','f and that " it is impqffible '• for any one, to give it a different meaning ; X" we are of opinion, that fuch fentiments have a direct tendency to fupport the interefts of that bigotry, which is too predominant amongft Ana- baptifts already ; and which, inflead of receiving an additional fpur from the Docior's pen, flands manifeftly in need of a retraining curb. Without flaying to confider how far thefe inlinuations compliment the flZ>///7/d'j of Poedobaptirts, who, in criticifm, as well as divinity, arc not a whil behind the chiefeft of Anabaptifts ; I cannot help taking notice, that, if according to the Doctor, *' it be *' impojjible" to give the word baptize, any other * See the Dodtor's Remark?, Sec. P. 144. I Ihid. P. 56. \ P. 44. meaning ( 127 ) meaning but that of '* dipping" then undoubted- ly myfelf and others have undertaken a very ar- duous tafk; for, is it not more than Hercuka?i labor, to encounter an impojjibility f or to attempt the proof of a point, which, it is inlinuateii, has nothing to authenticate or recommend it, but *' corrupt pradicef" However, notwithftanding the Doctor's bold affertions, and the formidable appearance, which 146 clofe pages, exhauiied ia vindication of dipping, may carry in the eye of an inconfiderate reader j I will, for once, adven- ture a bold alTertion, in the Do6lor's categorical flyle; and fay, that the word baptize does not lig- nify dipping only, and that it is not impoffible to prove, it has a different lignification. Yea, and I will even venture, not only to alTert, but to demon-. Jirate this; if fcripture-authority; the criticifms of lexicographers; the opinion of eminent divines; the conceffions of even fome Anabaptifts ; the {qu.- timents of primitive fathers and eminent reform- ers ; and the ufage of Proteflant churches, can be fuppofed to furnifli any folid materials for fuch undertaken demonftration. II. In the apology, which Dr. 5". makes for his invincible attachment to the peculiarities of his party, one would almoil infer, from the folemnity of his ftyle, that he thought thefe peculiarities were of the higheft importance. Thefe are his words, *' I know not how we can depart from it" (dipping,) " without affronting the authority of " Chriff, and opening the door to a thoufand in- ** novations of very dangerous confequence." *** * Page 25. Ho\v ( 128 ) How the relinquilliing an unimportant mode fhould be produdive of *' innovations," — " thow- ** fancir of innovations, — and of " very dangerous *' confequence," I muft acknowledge, I am not In- genious enough to find out. 1 can very ealiiy conceive how an intemperate zeal for dipping, and a rigid determination to fupport the caufe of Anabaptifm, may open a door to dangerous Innovations J becaufe, of this, hlftory affords an evident proof. Whence fprung the troubles In Germany, In the beginning of the fixteenth centu- ry r What was the origin of thofe dangerous " innovations" both of a civil and religious nature, which fpread terror and depopulation through a great part of the continent, and diflurbed Luther and his pious aflbclates In the work of reforma- tion r Did they not originate from Anabaptifm ? Was it not a fi°ry zeal for a particular mode, that Induced Bernard Rotman, the mad declaimer, John of Ley den, the infatuated monarch, Muncer, Knip- fer doling, and all the other ringleaders of a de- luded feet; to adopt this wild poiitlon, viz. " that " allzvho were mt re-e apti zed ivere to be account - "■ ed Pagans and Infidels?" and to extend It fllll farther, by publicly declaring, that all fucli ** zvere to be killed?" * Who fees not, that it was through the " door" of a rigid attachment to Anabaptifm, that a formidable train of thefe moft dreadful innovations entered ? And who fees not alio, from thefe l^ubborn fails, that bigotry * See Dr. Fcith's " IVnrmng for England, in the famous hiftory of '' the fi/:id'ic ^nali;ptijls ; t'liia" wild [ireachinu, ami prjtifliccs in Gtr- " mi,i:\\' P. 333. in ( 129 ) In nort-eiTentials is the natural parent of Innova- tions. When the breart is enflamcd by an inor- dinate zeal for the diftinguilhing badge of a party, the inflammation often increafes co fuch a degree, as to precipitate the unhappy zealot into the moft violent meafures. Zeal in fuch a cafe, operates on the inflammable conflitutions of bigots, as the paroxyfm of a malignant fever, does, upon the body. The human mind is wrought up to a pitch of frantic dehrium, in the one cafe, as well as the other : and, it is not therefore, to be wondered, that bigots, during the paroxyfm of their fiery zeal, Ihould dlfcover fymptoms of madnefs, re- fembling thofe, which attack perfons in a burn- ing fever, and prompt them to commit fuch def- perate a6ts, the very idea of which in the coolnefs of a healthy conflitutlon, would ftrike them with horror. This feems to have been literally the cafe of the German Anabaptijis. A high fever for re-bapti%ing, drove them to the mofl: uncharitable fentiments, rcfpecling fuch as differed from them ; whom they called Pagans and Infidch. Here the paroxyfm commenced. This uncharitablenefs pro- ceeded from words tq deeds. Their party muft be fupported vi & armis. What they could not ef- fc(5l by argument, they are determined to accom- plilll by the fivord. Furor arma minijirat. The flrong delufion fuggefted the neceifityof eflablilh- ing a fpiritual regency j and a bloody flag ought to have been the proper enfign of thefe fanguinary faints. Dreams and vilioris were the revelation, by which they pretended to have a commiflion from R God, ( i'3o > God, appointing jfoh?! of Ley de7i, 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 j. '* 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 refpecfUng innovations come from the. mouth or pen of Anabaptifls. Although 1 verily, believe, that there fublifts a great contraft between the political and religious fentiments of the German and £n7//7z Anabaptifts; yet methinks, a retrofpe(^ 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 Fagaiis. 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 inibellefine i6lu, a feeble weapon, that does no execution. We can afTure this gentleman, that we are as jealous for " the au- " thority of ChriJiJ' as himfelf, or any Anabaptift upon earth ; nor would wt, in the fmallefl puncfii- lio, wifh to deviate from any exprefs inftitution of our common Legiflator. But, we cannot think * Dr. Fcatlii " Comparative Hiftorvj'' &c. P. 227. that ( 131 ) "tnat the Doctor's implicit charge of " affronting" the divine authority, has any thing really to do with our adminiftering the ordinance of baptifni in another mode, different from that of dipping. Could the Do6>or, or any of his brethren, prove, that the rlLe can be adminiftered with lignificant refemblance only by immerlion; and that the words baptize and baptifni can be accommodated to no other idea, but that of dipping : in that cafe, we fliould fufpect the validity of our mode of admi- niftratlon by fprinkling or pouring of water. But we defy the Do61or to do this : and, under a full perfuaiion, that neither he, nor his fubaltern of Liverpool, who fights with his borrowed weapons, have hitherto done it, I fhali 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. paffes on Dr. Stennett's anfwer to Mr. Addington, in a note, p. 16. " One would have hoped," fays he, *' that *' that excellent performance, had filenced the *' advocates for fprinkling, for a while at leaft; " efpecially as Mr. A. has not thought proper to " reply to the Doctor." — 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 filent, becaufe not able to encounter \{\t Doi^or. For there is nothing fo really tremen- dous in the Doiflor's treatifes, as to intimidate any judicious Poedobaptift from conlidering them fully-, much lefs one of M.wA.'s profefTional know- ledge, as a fcholar and a divine. If Mr. A.'i R 2 other ( 13^ ) other more important avocations did not abridge Ills leifare moments, we might, probably, be fa- vored with fuch a reply, as would be more than a match for the Dodlor's " excellent performance." Eat, perhaps Indeed, Mr. A. Is lilent, from a full perfualion that it is not opera pretium to maintain a controverfy with men, who feem to admit it as the declarative maxim of their party, that, whether they have the beft of the argument or not, they ivill have the laft word. — Mr. yf.'s filence, at the fame time that it furnilhes Mr. M. with an impli- cit but gronndlefs argument of inability, feems to fill him with a proportionable degree of aftonilh- men'c, that I Ihould prejume to offer any ftridures on a fubjecft, which he thinks his oracle has dif- cuffed with unanfwerable argument already; and he adopts a fuppofition, *' that I have only read one *' fide of the queftion/' otherv/ife I fliould not have advanced, what others have contradicted. But here he happens to be altogether miftaken. For, antecedently to my late publication, I neither faw nor read either fide of the queftion: and 1 hope the fequel will demonftrate, that I have attended to Mr. M.'s ma:^im, which, from the prodigious depth of his learning, he has been fo kind to con- ftrue for me, viz. " Audi alter am partem, that is, *' hear the other fide,'' — As to the " mortification," which he infinuates mufl: arlfe to me, from a pe- rufal of the Doctor's " excellent performance;" I allure him he is here like wife miftaken. Inftead of being mortified, I am amiifcd. And my amufe- ment is not a little heightened by Mr. M/s afTum- ( 133 ) ing the " office of exhibiting mc." If indeed the exhibiter had either truth, raodef^y, or learning, wherewith to grace his exhibitions, he might palm them upon the public, as res fpkndidas. But, la- boring, as they manifeftly do, under every fpecies of difadvantage, they exhibit a jumble of confum- mate ignorance and audacity ; and, like the pro- phet's m-arred girdle, are good for nothing, but to be hiffed off the ftage of controverfy, with a Fro- cul ejie, niigis prof ana ! IV. In my animadverlions on the inconclulive- nefs of Mr. TW.'s pulpit-deciamations, I took no- tice of his faying, that thofe, who adminifier baptifm by pouring or fprinkling of water, " only " baptize the ends of their fngjrs." This obferva- tion I faid ' favored more of I'ulgarity than of folidity;' and I now reiterate the charge. In order to apologize for the obnoxious phrafe, Mr. M, informs us, that it was borrowed from Mr. Selden. But furely the mere ipfe dixit, or precipitate " thought'' of this gentleman, farnillies no argu- ment againft our mode; nor does the name of Mr. iS. or Mr. any-body-elfe, give fuch a fandion to an unguarded exprellion, as that it fliould drop its exceptionable import, merely becaufe a great man efpoufes it. A 'vulgarity is a ^vulgarity flill, whether it proceed from the pen of Mr. Selden, or from his borrower Mr. M. And a vulgar exprellion, fo far from being weakened, is- rather additionally oifenlive, in proportion to the great- nefs of the name that dignifies it. Thus a vulgar expreffion from Farmenas, is not fo vulgar as from Mr. C 134 ) Mr. M. becaufe he (Mr. M.) is a much greater nan. Flovvever, though Mr. Selden might be ex- cufcd in dropping a vulgar thought in his ftudy, end even in pubUlbing it afterwards from the ' prefs ; yet, furely this will by no means juftify his borrower in throwing out the wanton witticifm from the pulpit. When the facred defk is difgrac- ed by fuch declamatory petulance; is not the fo- lemnity of a public ordinance deftroycd? Does not the declaimer bid farewell to the didlales of decency and candor? And docs not lach an illi- beral mode of attacking us, imply, that our mo- deft opponent meant, either to laugh his hearers out of their veneration for Poedobaptift, or to dra- goon them into a compliance with his inconclulive dogmas? Is fuch pompous felf-fufticiency a likely way, to engage an audience in favor of the preach- er or his fentiments? Would not a fenfible man avoid this hackneyed fpecies of vulgarizing to a promifcuous audience ? when he confiders, that fome prefent might be Iharp-fighted enough, to fee that fuch witty declamation was a poor fabfli- tute for argument; and indicated the weaknefs of the caufe he intended to fupport. Whether 1 had not reafon to charge Mr. M. with pubhcly ridiculing his brethren, who do not pradlife imm.erfion, let the adopted quotation from Selden teftify. Yet this gentleman has the face to think himfelf prodigioully injured and evenjian- dercd; and attempts to exculpate himfelf. " As to '^ your charge of ridicuhng my brethren, I do fo- *•' lemnly declare, that I am ialfly accufcd. Is it *' not C ^35- )• " not cruel to be thus publicly vilified and flan- ** dered ?" "■•• How a man can thus fix a Jolann declaration to a notorious miftake fculking under a prevaricating quibble, is to me aftonilhing. — What ! is it not " ridicule" to reprefent us before a public auditory, as " only baptizers cf the endi of " our finger sT* confequently to exhibit us as dif- penling a mock-ordinance j yea, no ordinance at all? Does not that juftly merit the name of " ri- dicule' which ungeneroufly fneers at our mlnifte- rial capacity ? When we pour or fprinkle water on the fubje61: in the name of the blelled Trinity, we think that the facred ceremony is, to all Intents, performed. Yet Mr. M. publicly declares, v/e baptize only tlie ends, of our fingers. Does he not by fuch a lliamelefs infinuation, render the minif- ters who diifer from him, and their mode of admi- niftration, at once contemptible ? And, by doing this on a folemn public occafion, is not his con- dud marked with a fingular aggravation? Will he evade the force of our juft reprehenfion by urging, that he ridiculed none of his minlfterial brethren, becaufe he mentioned none of their names ? Or does he think it any extenuation of his mifdemeanor, that his ridicule was borroivedf Did he not by a public quotation, fet his appro- batory feal to it, and thereby make if his ownf All thefe circumftances confidered, I fubmit the matter to the decifion 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 falfly accufed," he * Pa^e 37. does ( 136 ) does not dignify an obvious untruth, with a fo- lemn declaration : and, whether he ought not in the moft exprefs and humiliating terms, afk 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 m one ridicules prailices, they! fuppofe ** abfurd, more than I do." But here his re- prefentation of me is as void of juft coloring, as his borrowed fneer at his brethren has been proved to be deftitute of candor, decency, and truth. By " practices, which I fuppofe abfurd," he means dipping, &c. But I am not confcious of *' ridicu- ling" this pra6^ice, as a mode of baptizing. 1 only expofe, perhaps fometimes with a little *' mild iro- ny," the abfurdlly 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 cpere operato. This abfurd per- verlion of a divine inftitution we expofe, and de- tel^. But, becaufe we think the ahiife of an ordi- nance an objecl: of jufl: ridicule, we do not there-- fore ridicule the ordinance itfelf. Anabaptifts main- tain, that dipping head-over-ears is ejjential to baptlfmi and that the adminiftration oftheordi^ nance by pouring or fprinkling of water is na baptifm. We fmile therefore at an abufe of their pradice to the purpofes of bigotiy, though we ac- knowledge ( 137 ) knowledge the pradice 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 Chriji, each communi- cant Ihould eat a loaf of bread; if they thus re- ftrided the ejfence of the faCrament to their modei and afferted, that thofe who difpenfed the elements in fmaller quantities, did thereby deftroy the na- ture of the ordinance, and make it no eucharifi ^ would not their peculiarity be an object of juft ridicule ? We think the bigoted ftrefs, which Ana- baptifts place in the quaritity 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 afcertair^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 unbaptizedj we are fbrry for the bigotry that lies at the root of fuch reparation, and cannot help fmillng 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 expoling the abfurd claims of bigotry j yet how does this admit a parallel with the condu6l of Mr. Adf 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 ( 138 ) the pen of controvertifts ; yet I defy any perfon living to prove, that I ever threw out the fmallefl ungenerous reflexion againft Anabaptifts or their fentiments from the pulpit; * even though a fecond vilit from Mr. M. repeated not long after the former, and conduced with the fame fpirit of dogmatic afflirance, aiforded 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 public ordinances; the weight of the fundamental truths of the gof- pel ; the awful capacity of an embaflador oiChrijt; the reverential gravity that fhould run through all our miniflratJons; and of the value of immortal fouls ; ever to call off the attention of my hearers from truths of infinite importance to comparative trifles ; to amufe them with laughable fallies of vulgar witticifms, at the expence, perhaps of truth, * I the rather mention this, becaufe one of the tii-in-dtfputaiits has in- finuated, in his wonderful piece of clajtcal patch-work, that I have, in my public difcourfes, thrown out as fevere things on the fubjedl of Infant- baptlfin, as Mr. M. did, on that of dipping. I beg to know whether this reverend patch-maker's infmuation be founded on ear-witnefs or mere information. If on the latter, which I am pretty fure mu ft be the cafe, then he is guilty of the very crime, for which he has abufcd me in " immenfe (lores of clafTical" rhodomontade ; only with this effential difference, that ;«y charge of fevere ridicule, brought againfl Mr. iVf . is founded on (lubborn fad: ; his (the patch-maker's) information, refpeAing me, on notorious falfliood. To the bed of my recollection, I never, fmce I came to this place, faid any thing on the fubjei5t of baptifm, but on two occafions ; once, only en pajfant, in a difcourfe on Jfa. lii ; and once in an evening expofition of I Cor. x. On both occafions, I fimply and very concifely delivered my fentiments, as a Minifler of the Church ©f England ; without offering any controverfial attack upon thofe, who might differ from me. And as to any rldkuk, it was as far from my thoughts, or my manner of delivering them, as Mr. jAf.'s declamationi were from decency and candor. For the truth of this, I appeal to all who attend my minidry. as ( ^39 ) as w-ell as decorum ; and much lefs to Infift on what Dr. Stennett very properly calls *' invidious *' topics of argument," calculated to fcatter abroad the fparks of unhallowed zeal, and to convert the facred delk 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 baptifm, it will be neceflary to flate a few preliminaries, (i) The controverfy between us and the Anabaptifts, refpeding the mode, turns on the following point; viz. Whether the * idea of dipping is ejferitially or only included in the words ^^oiTrjiQA) and i^oc%^'i(riJL(^;' or whether their lignifica- tion comprehends ether modes of applying the baptifmal water. The Anabaptifts, in afferting the former, confequently deny the latter. (2) It is readily allov/ed, that dipping is ons 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 eftablilhing a favorite but unimportant ceremony.' f (3) ^^ i^ allowed, that baptifm has often been adminiftered, in former S 2 times, •f This declaration which I made in p. ao, of my Letter to a Bapt'ijl- Vihiiftcr, Mr. M. quotes no lefs than four times in the compafs of a few pages. His manifeft defign in vaporing away on this paflage, is, to exhibit rae as afferting, what fee7ns to contradict the fentiments of the Church of Enghmd. Hut if this difmgenuous quoter and his dsmi-reve- r.en4 ( HO ) times, by immerition. But as this mode of admi- nlftration was adopted, according to the nature of the climate, the age, or flate of the fubje^l, &c, it was, on the fame principle, altered and varied, as circumftantials fuggefled. And, even in warm countries, where the obje(?lion to dipping had lefs force, than in our northern climates, yet it was thought necelTary frequently to deviate from this mode; nor was fuch deviation ever fuppofed to weaken, much lefs to deftroy, the ejfence of the facrament. The appofite conceffion of Tilenus is moft^remarkable. "Although immerfion might *' have been formerly more" (not altogether) '* ufu- *' al, efpecially in Judea and other warm coun- rcnil fubaltern in Sahf, who joins with him in a firailar ftrain of critic cifm, had but candidly compared me with mylelf ; they might have at once difcovered the injuftice and futility of their obfervations. I faid, in p. 17 of my Letter, that ' the idea of ciipfing is not ejfcntially conned:ed ' with the word baptize.'' Did not that manifeftly imply a conctlCon, that the idea is fi met imes connected with it ? And did not my very cjuo- tation from Leigh's Critlca Sacra imply fo much ? So that, to any inge- nuous perfon, my faying that ' to attribute the idea of dipping to the * word baptize, is to mifinterpret the oracles of God,' would imply no more, than tbat the confiidng the word to that idea only, comes under the charge of fuch mifinterpretion. However, if Mr. M. ftilJ thinks, I have faid any thing derogatory to the fentiments of the Church of England, wfiich needs a reprehenfion from my diocefan, he is heartily welcome to tranfmit his complaints, as foon, and as particularly as pofuble. But the frequent honorable mention I have inade of our Church, as well as the refpeAful teftimony I have borne to her difci- pline and ecclefiaftical governors, will fo effedtually confront the flan- derous imputation of my falfe acculer ; that if he were even to go In froprid perfind , with his complaint about what he impertinently calls " my fneer,'" \ might expecSt fuch a candid hearing from my diocefan as would juftify my fentiments, and put the officious Anabaptift to ibame. If ever he accofts mc again, with a piece of fimilar impertinence, I re- queft he would look into the Preface of Mr. Dc Coetlogons Sermons ; where he will fee another candid thought rcfpedting the lawn-Jleeves ; and then he may link us both together in a charge of fneerlng, and pro- pofc our being " called to anfwer for it," ** tries.. ( HI ) *^ tries, than ajperfton ; yet, lince this clrcum- " ftance" (viz. of dipping) *' does not pertain to " the fuhfiance of baptifm ; the analogy of the *' facrament may be preferved, no less by fprink- " ling, than by dipping." * (4) It is a fa6l not to be denied, that the Church of England admits dipping as one mode of adminiiiering baptifm; but, contrary to the bigotry of Anabaptifm, flie acknowledges other modes of adminiflration as equally valid ; doubtlefs for the judicious reafon alfigned by Dr. Lightfoot. " The application of *' water is neceffary, as to the e£ence of baptifm ; " but, the application, by this or the other mode, ** expreffes the circumJiaJice." § (5) The Anabap- tifls in this kingdom, who conftantly immerfe their candidates, in onkr to argue confiftently with their pra6iice, are obliged ftrenuoufly 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 of invalids or pregnant women, 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 position, 1 Ihall therefore difmifs it, with only obferving, that the Anabaptifts in Holland dillent from their bre- * ^tanrvis mttem tmmerfw ufitatior olim fuerlt, prTferiim in Judxa & aliii regionibiis calidhribus, quam afpcrfto ; tamen, cum neqiic ad haplifmi suestan-^ TIAM pcrtiiictit hxc circiimftantia ; nec minus in aspersione, quayn m hnmcrfwne, facramcnti analogia fervetur. Tilen. Difp. i. de haptifmo. The/, xr, P. 886. § AppUcatio aqiix nccejfar'ta eft dc efTcntia laptifmi ; aft applicatlo hoc vcl illo modo circmwilintizm fount. Dr. Lightfoot. lior. Hcira. in Matth. iii. 6, P. 50. thren '( 142' ) thren in this kingdom, and relax the rein of bi- gotry (o far, as to practice affufion. (6) The Ana- baptitls inlift that the word baptize ahvays lignifies to dip. But they are obliged, if they would be con- iiftent, to go farther, and aiTert that it implies fuch dipping, as fuppofes the party to be wholly buried under the wa.ier. For, if one fcripture-in- fl-ance can be produced, where a partial immeriion is called a baptifm, or where a perfon or thing is iald to be baptized, when only a part has been walhed with water; then all their arguments for a total immeriion fall to the ground. Many fuch inftanccs I hope to produce from the word of God; and Ihall ftrengthen my obfervations on this head, by the conceffions of Dr. Gale. (7) Though it be acknowledged that fome Poedobaptifts have grant- ed the propriety of baptizing by immeriion; yet furely this will not ferve the .caule of Anabaptilin, unlefs it could be demonftrated to be the opinion of the rhajority. Belides,, will Anabaptifts, who applaud the candid fentlments of fome Poedobap- tifts refpefting the mode, admit their teliimony on the fubjcd o^ Infant -baptifm? Would they ad thus fairly by fome of the authorities they quote, I know of none whofe fentiments are more exprefs or formidable againft Anti-pcedobaptifm, than their favorite Dr. IVhitby. (8) When Anabaptifts quote palfages from authors, on the mode of bap- tizing, and the lignification of the original word, they either fo manifeftly curtail the paffages they quote, or keep wholly out of light the real fenti- ments of the author, as to make him appear an advocate ( 143 ) advocate for total immerlion, as the ejfence of tHc facrament. A few cliarges of this kind, 1 promife to make good againft Dr. Stenneti, in his quota- tions from Calvin, Be%a, Vojjius, &:c. (9) I beg the judicious reader, once for all, to remember, that: when Anabaptifts produce inftances, where '^uvfji^u) lignifies to dip, they take pains to prove, what we never denied; viz. that dipping is not excluded irom the lignification of the original word; and, many voluminous treatifes they have thrown away upon this needlefs fubjecSl. But, if they intend that their reafoning fhould amount to conclulive argument, and that their fentiments fhould keep pace with their avowed pra6tice, they ought to prove, that the controverted word ligniiies to dip only ; and by a total immerfion : that the facrament is invalidated by every other mode of applying the baptifmal water: that fcripture furnilhes not a lingle in- ftance of the ufe of the word baptize or baptifm, where a wajliing in part is implied: and that the authors, they produce as countenancing their fen- timents, never acknowledge, that other modes of facramental walhing, 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 i]ieets. CHAP. ( 144 ) CHAP. lY. J?ialogical reafoning from the effufion of the Spirit to- the mode of adminijiering haptifm, hy pouring or fprinkling of water, fupported by argument, and the authorities of Voffius and Chemnitius. yf remarkable correfpondent tefiimony from Origen. Dr. Stennett'5 and Mr. M.V argume?its, in favor c/" total immerfion, drawn from the ufe of the word ^ciTfjuj and the Hebrew tebel, proved to be weak and fallacious. Memorable concessions from Dr. Gale confidered. IN the management of controverfy, there are certain rules of argumentation, which contro- vertifts are refpe6ilvely to obferve, in order to keep up both the decorum and perfpicuity of lo- gical reafoning. One of thefe eftabhllied rules, is. Neuter difputaritium alter ius partes fufcipiat; 7ieque opponens in partem refpondentis involet, aut contra. X Whether my redoubtable antagonift is in the leaft acquainted with this rule, or the requilition it en- joins, the following fpecimen of his controverlial abilities, will abundantly indicate. In p. 1 5, he maintains that " baptifm always iignifies dipping.'* And how do you think, reader, he fcts about ^roi'/'Tz^ this unguarded politlon ? Why thus. "This " I moji certainly do, 'till the idea is proved erro- *' neous. "Do you prove it if you can." So here our wonderful logician, iirft, gives us his pofitive aiTer- \ Neither of the difpiuants fliould take up the other's fide; nor Qv^'j'J t'Ji'-" opponent encroach on the ^art of the refpondcnt, or vice verfu. tion ; ( 145 ) tion; and, when the bulinefs of ^roi'/w^ manifeftly devolves on Kim as the opponent, he relinquinies his proper fide of the difputation, and calls upon me to prove the negative ; not knowing that the proof lies not on the refpondent, but upon the opponent, who is the ajerter : according to the well-known maxim in argumentation, Negantis mn eft probare : Ajferenti incumhit probatio. From this curious fpecimen of our author's controverlial decorum, the reader may judge, whether it is not an unpleaiing tafk to face a difputant, whofe undemonttrated alTer- tions are often made to reft upon the nugatory foundation of a ^' tnoji certainly-," and by whofe palpable ignorance of the laws of difputation, I am affigned the double office of proving the pojitive of my own aflertions, 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 difquallfication for controverfy ; but becaufe I hereby pofTefs a favorable opportunity at the fame time, of attacking, through his iides, the monfter bigotry, and the great Diana of Anabap- tifm, in which Ic Is enfhrlned. — But our author is no lefs fallacious In the mode, than he Is deficient in the matter of difputation. A flight attention to a few of his arguments on dipping, will dlicover this. I. In order to afcertain the lignlfication of cer- tain words, or phrafes, occurring in facred writ, it is neceifary to compare fcripture with fcripture, and hereby to make the word of God its own in- terpreter. This mode of interpreting fcripture T felf- ( 146 ) felf-com pared, I have adopted, in inveftlgatliig the import of the word baptize-, that I might there- by demonftrate, how futile and ill-grounded are the fentiments of Anabaptifls, who would inlinu- ate, that it always implies a total immerfion, 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. in p. 16, 1 7, of my Letter, eight texts of fori pture, whofe refpe^live correfpondence with each other, proves, that the terms baptizing and fprinkling, pouri?7g out, and even falling upon, are ufed fynony- mouily in fcripture. Let us fee, what our author has to fay againfi this. I. " Your quotation and comparifon of feveral '* fcriptures, which next follow, 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-contradi6\ory. And whether a comparing of fcripture with fcripture be a likely way to confound one thing with another, 1 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.'* * Vv'^hat p-amm.irl This is the gentleman, that has affecSed to criticij} vpon others. Whether he, and his corrector of the prefs, under whole banner he iloriflies away, have any jufl claim to criticilm, let the above lentence tefrify. But inflances of this nature, are quite common fron> the accurate pens of the ailkal duumvirate, Mr. M. and Mr. J. That ( 147 ) That V 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 1 am not confcious of having mixed or co?ifounded the one with the other, and I hope the candid reader will acquit me from the charge. — " You tell us indeed that 377i7r:7:pj " and ^aTrjiQjo are fynonymous." I do not. What 1 fay, is, * that baptizing and falling upon are ufed * fyno-nymoufly.* There is a manifell: difference between faying, that certain words are vs'e.id fyno- vymoujly ', and that they are fynonymous. My mode of exprelhon imphes, that, though the words are contrary quoad terminos, 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 "^hh. him by baptifm, &c." Tho' a burial and a baptifm are terms not flriflly fyno- nymous, yet I fuppofe you would not fcruple to alfert that thefe words are ufed fynonymoully. In like manner do 1 argue refpe6ling the mode of baptifm by pouring of water. As the apoftle Peter fays that the Gentiles v/ere baptized when the Holy Ghoft/f// 072 them ; {o, we aiTert, that wa.ter 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 vv^ords of the prophet ^oel ii. 28, quoted by Peter in Jcis ii. and compared with verfe 33 of that T 2 chapter. ( 148 ) (chapter. The Lord promlfes by the prophet that he would " pour out his Spirit on all fleih." The fulfilment of this promife is attefted by the apojile ; who ufes the very fame word, to exprefs the bap- tifm of the difciples on the day of Pentecoji. If ever therefore the force of analogical argument be al- lowed, furely it ought in the prefent ftriking in- flance. And If it be admitted, then the following argument. In favor of baptizing by effufion of water, is irrefragable, viz. If according to the corref- pondent teftimonies oi Joel 2Lnd. Peter, the apoftles were baptized by the pouring out of the Spirit ; then perfons may, with fcrlptural propriety, be bap- tized by the pouring out of water : for If the term be ufed to exprefs the mode of communicating the THING fignified in baptlfm, i. e. the wajimig of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghoji ; it ought confequently to be appropriated to i\\tj2gn, and muft neceffarlly point out a mode of adml- nlfterlng it. And, it affords me not a little plea- fure, that I have the opinion of fo great a man as Vossius, to give a fancSlion to this analogical inference, drawn from the aforefaid correfpon- dent fcrlptures. " But, from the other opinion, *' by which to baptize lignllies to wajh, it is tranf- " ferred to the gift of the Holy Spirit; to wit, *' becaufe, that he might %vaJhi\it{oM\,\\t Is poured " out on it, like water : as Joel faith, chap. il. 28, *' and Peter, ji^s il. 17, and likewife Paul, Tit, *' ill. 6. He hathfaved us by the wajliing of re genera- t* tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghofi, which he hath " POURED ( 149 ) f POURED OUT, &c."f' To thls appofitc declam? tion of Vossius, give me leave to add the cor- refpondent teftimony of Chemniti us, who flo- rillied A. D. 1565. This able examiner of the decrees of the Fopifh council of Trendt, thus expreffes himfelf on the mode of baptifm. " Paul, *' that infallible interpreter fays, that to baptize, "is to ckanfe by the wajliing of water through the " word. Eph. v. Tit. iii. J(^s ii. Whether the *' adminiftering the water be performed by dip- ** ping, tinging, pouring or Jpr inkling, it is a baptl- *' zation-, for, it is a cleanling or walhing by water. " Nor is dipping under ivater mcejjarily requilite " to walhing. — The command of Chriji therefore '' is, that in baptifm there be a walliing by water. '' But, by what mode it ihould be performed, whe- ?* tlier by dipping, tiiiging, pouring oy fprinkling, " Chriji has no where prelcribed," * 3 On the preceding teftimonies of thefe two great men, I beg leave to make a few remarks. (1) It is evident they both concur, in referring f Jb altera vcro mtloiie, qua QciTfli^nv abluere Jlgyificat transfertur ad donat'wnem Spiritus fandbi ; ncmpc quoniam hie, id anhnani abluat, Ai)\3ie. INETAR, in earn effunditur : prout loquitur ]ocl ii. 2^. & exiiide Fetxus, A<5ts ii. 17. item Paulus, Tit. iii. 6. " Servavit nos per lavacrum rege~ " neratlonis, & remvationcm Spiritus Saudi, quern effudit, &c." Vofs. de bapt. difp. I. p. 344. * Paulus ceriijimus interpres dicit baptizare ej/c purgare per hvacrtim in verba. Eph. v. Tit. iii. Aifts ii. Sive adbibilio aqiu fiat mergendo, tingen- do, perfundcndo, feu afpergendo, ej} baptizatio: cji enim purgatio, feu ahlutio per lavaennn aqiiic. Nee ad lavacrum neceffario reqi'iritur immerfio fub aquam, — Chrifti igitur inandatum efl, ut in baplifnio fiat ablulio per lava- crum aqu.t. ^:o vero mo do ilia fieri deheat^ five mergendo, tingendo, per- fundcndo, _/7w afpergendo, ChiiHui mn prxfr.p/it. Chcmnitii Lxam.Concil. Trident. Fart 2. P. 123. to ( 15^ ) to the very fcrlptures, in Joel and the ASls, on which I ground my oblervations refpecting the vaHdity of baptifm by ^ottnK^ of water. (2) t 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 bapiifm. And furely the leftimony 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. Stemiett. (3) According to the fame learned itien, baptifm figniRes waJJmig; ofi which there are Tarious modes; and that a.s pouri?ig of water is one, it is confequently a lignificanl mode of adminifter- ing baptifm ; for it exhibits an emblematical re- prefentation of the pouring-out of the Spirit, and of the wafbing of regeneration. (4) In oppolition to the fentiments of Anabaptifts in general, and of Dr. Stcnnctt in particular, Chemnitius fays, " dip- '* ping under water is not Tiecejfarily requifite to " wajhing;" confequently not ejjential to the mode of difpenfing baptifm. For, as Domuiicus Sotus fays. *' In baptifm, fomething co2icerns the ef- *' fence f as wajking; according to that in Ephef v. *' where the apoftle calls baptifm the wajhing- of *' water: but fomething is accidental i as whether " the wafhing be performed by this or the othef '' mode" f- f In hapt'tfmo aliiid ej} de effcntia, tit ablutio, juxta lUnd ad Ephef. 5, iili apojiohis hapVpimm appellnt lavacruni aqux : alitid vera acciileiitarium ; nempe ut ahluiio hoc vel illo modo fiat. Dominic. Sot. Difi'wc. 3. qu. tin. Art. 7. Thefe words are qaoted by Vojfnn, in confirmation of his own fentiments, refpecSling the fignification of the word lapttfm, and the inifdts of wafliing it implies. jy t),,,. ( 151 ) 11. But let us now fee, v/hat Mr. M. has to fay in favor of immerlion, from the fuppofed analogy between the baptlfm of the Sph'it and his favorite mode of baptizing. *' The baptifm of the Holy *' Ghoft (by the way) does not at all favor your *' notion of fprlnkling ; with much greater pro- *' priety, the difciples might be faid to be im- *' merged or overwhelmed in it!" If Mr. M. in- tends baptijm as the antecedent to it, 1 need not advertiie the judicious reader, that as baptifm with Mr. M. always fignlfies immerfion, to fay, the dif- ciples were overwhelmed or immerged in immerfion, favors a little of what he is pleafed to call a " cri- tical error r * But if the Holy Ghofi is intended as. the antecedent to it; furely, to fay *' the difci- *' pies were immerged in the Holy Ghoft," is an extremely harlh and uncouth phrafe. But I'-t 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 ; they were ^^^^^^(i without and j^/Zd'c/ 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. M. means, all this curious reafon- Jngof 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 " facra mental error" intend an error refpcuii:g the facrmnent of baptifm. If the latter be an exprellion " peculiarly my own ;" fo, by a parity of reafoninf, the former is an exprellion " peculiarly Mr. M.'s oivn. Thus the mighty critic keeps me in countenance, by adopting the very ir.cdc cf " critical error," which he blames. prefent ( 152 ) pfcfent '' I contend." But if by '' all this" he mean, all the circumftances attending the effalion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecort, as recorded in Acis ii. I will venture to affert, that there is not only " one ivord" but more than one argument ^ in that remarkable paiTage, on which to ground an allulion in favor of baptizing by pouring or Iprinkling of water. Of this I hope the reader has received fome degree of fatisfailory proof already : and I promife him a little additional evidence in a few more ftriflures on the fubjedl. Not to urge, that the baptifm of the Spirit, ac- cording to the joint teftimonles of an rxpoftle and a ■prophet, is mentioned in the very term pouring cut ; I aflv by^ what authority, does Mr. M. ac- commodate the word " covering" to the circum- ftances of that event? May I not jull;ly adopt his own phrafeology, and fay, " In all this" palTage, *' there is not one word" about co'ceritig, nor any appoiite analogy, between filling and dipping f In order to detect the fallacious abfurdity of Mr. M,'s reafoning on this head, proceed we to a fair examination. I Mr. M. lays, the difclples were " covered ** without and filled within," and therefore that *' they might with great propriety be faid, to •' be immirged or overwhelmed in the Holy Ghofi" According to Mr. 7l>a;^;tf XByojj.tfOi iir\,o-fiu.%(7a.z 0ix.7fli^iiv e/lisMe ; URiGtN. Comment, in Joann. Tom. 7. ji. 116. ed. Roiom. i658. •^ as ( '57 ) as it is the former word only, that is ufed in the pafiage, we have been juft confidering. Proba- bly fo fudden a leap, which is quite in the re- trograde fiyle too, might be oGcaiioned by fonie fecret apprehenlion, that as the arguments drawn from the application of the one word, failed in conclulivenefs, thofe founded on the other might help our author out, at a dead lift. But, he is not aware that to argue promiicuoufly frombaj7z-7w to ^ocr^i^oc, is to confound together two words, in the application of which, the fcriptures ob- ferve a manifefl: diiiin^ion : for, whatever be the meaning of Zu-floo^ it is certain that it is never once ufed, to exprefs the z.di of adminiftering baptijm; the derivative always occurs. But, if 'c^uTTJi^oc, iignified always to dip as the Anabap- tifts affert its primitive invariably does j would not the infpired writers have ufed the one and the other indilTerently ? This they nave not done. No word but the derivative ever occurs, where baptifm is mentioned; and if it did not carry a peculiar acceptation, why fnould the fcriptures always adopt ^ocTfjill:} What occafion for mak- ing a derivative, when according to Anabaptirts, the primitive is intirely of the fame lignificat ion? I But, however, as Mr. M. fancies his great- eft ftrength lies in the argunients taken from the lignificaLion of the primitive, It is fit I Ihould let him have full fcope. The pafiage he has cho^ fen for that purpofe is Dan. iv. 33; where the prophet fays, " Nebuchadnezzar was wet c'o«(p>? •' with the dew of heaven." On this Mr. M, obferves. ( 158 ) obferves, " the Greek v/ord is the original of ** QuTfliQ^," And what then? Why, nothing. He has drawn no inference from his premiflcs. But his meaning is, that, as the primitive is ufed to exprefs a wetting, l"o muft the derivative ; and fo far we have no objeiiion to his concluilon. Nor can we have lefs to the conceffion, which follows. ** Now we all admit that the dew did fall down *' from heaven up^^n him." And in admitting this, you grant all we want, and manifeftly give up the point. For if Nebuchadiiezzar was wet or baptized by the dew failing down upon him, (I fay baptized; for you know you coniiantly affert that ^oiTTJoo and ^a'^fjt^oo are the lame) then, a per- fon may receive a valid baptifm by the facramen- tal water falVrng dcivn upon him; and if this il- luftration does not^ from the conceffions of our dipper's own pen, juftify our mode of baptifm by pouring, wherein the water falls doivn upon the fubje palpable nonfenfe, his reafoning is erabarraiTed. 4 But Mr. M. is of opinion, that he is fur- nllhed wi;h a formidable argument, In favor of immerfion, becaufe it Is faid, that N. Ibould have his lodgiiig oivXicrQ'/jTSTui in the dew. And if 1 were difpofed to argue in the fame filly ftyle, I might Infer, that, as our Lord is faid to have " lodged IN the mountain," yjvKicjto sig to o^(^, Luke xxl. 37, therefore he mufl have been over- whelmed or covered with the mountain. — O but the *' Chalcke word always fignifies to be over- " whelmed.'* I deny the alTertloni and, as Mr. M has ( 1^3 ) has offered no proof, my fimple negative miglit, according to the laws of difputation, be allowed as a fufficlent anfwer. Neverthelefs, I will attempt to prove the negative ; viz. that the Chaldee word does not always Hgnify to be overwhelmed. Dr. Stennett fays, the word In the Hebrew, by which the Jerufalem Targum renders the Chaldee, is tehel. If then an inftance can be produced, where th6 Hebrew does not fignify overwhelming, Mr. M.'s argument necelfarily falls to the ground. A re- markable inftance occurs. Gen, xxxvil. 31, v/here 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 word that according to Dr. S, agrees with that in Dan. iv. 33. Yet the Septuagint does not render it i^fz-l/czv but ^cjMXuvav Tov yjTMvcc TOO anxaji, inquind- runt, they Jiaiyied or hejmeared the garment, &c Belides, indeed, reafon concurs in eftablilbing this tranllationj for, furely, it is not to be fuppofed, that yofeph's brethren would immerge or overwhelm his garment in the blood; lince that very circum- ftance would manifeftly tend to dete(5\ their crime, and to make their ftory about Jojeplis being de- ftroyed by a wild beaft, to wear the appearance not only of improbabiUty, but of palpable falf- liood. The moft natural fuppofition, is, that they Jiained 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, as, that the garment was not overwhelmed in, or co- ^ered over with blood, (i) That the controverted X 2 word word does not always lignify either to dip or to overwhelm, is evident, from the lignification of the root itfelf, and fome of its branches. V"\yi is the Hebrew for a Hxana-, and is a participle from yy^; which participle, 'Trommius, in his Greek Concordance, under the word 'Toi.v;;, (Vol. ii. P. 567,) renders '* coloratus -," and that he did ijot mean an univerfal coloring occalioned by a total dipping, or indeed by any dipping at all, in the prefent application of the word, is evident ; becaufe he immediately quotes the Dutch tranfla- tors, faying, " IJelg. befprinckkt.'' i. e. besprin- kled. So that, according to Trommius, the word implies a cohring, performed by fprinkling ; and from this idea, is applied to /potted animals. So Schindler, by a perlphralis, makes it the name of an Owl. Feriphrajis no^ua, qua rubris maculis diftin^ia eft. * And Leigh fays, '' It is rightly *' explained by Hieronymus, as Hgnlfying dyed^ *' tinged ox dif colored; and by X^j'/»cA/«^, 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 lijien; or to any thing /potted by- nature, as in the cafe of fome animals. And, whe- ther this interpretation, authenticated by Trom- mius, the Dutch Tran/lators, Leigh, Schindler, Hiero- nymus and Kimchius, does not overturn the over- * And it is very remarkable, that our Tranflators call the Greek vanivj, ivhich is the Septuagint word for the Hebrew, in Jcr. xii. 9. a SPECLED bird. ■f ReBe i^ittir ah Hieron^Tno exponititr, tiniftum vel difcolor : codemque. modo, a Kymchio, fjod variorum ejl colarum, Ctitica Sacra. whelming ( i65 ) ^Mffz/w^ aflertions 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 )}2.'t^ iignifics a finger, it is therefore ap- plied to birds of prey, who as Leigk fays, arc iincis unguibus digit a ti : yuiiius and TremelUus accordingly tranflate the feptuagint Greek %ouvy„ digitatum avem. In yer. xii. 9 ; and our EngliJJi tranflation, abiding b}^ the Hebrew, renders it fpeckled. The only difficulty here. Is to afcertain the analogy or correfpondence between the He- breiv root, and Its branch j and between both, and the Greek, Latin and Englijfz tranflations. The moft natural interpretation feems to be this. — The Hebrew word lignifies a. finger ov talon : and becaufe animals armed with talons, or as Leigh fays, ujicis unguibus digit at a, fiain themfelves with the blood of their prey, therefore the word is defcriptlve of carnivorous animals, ® /potted either by 7iature or by accident. Hence the fame judi- cious lexicographer gives us the following appo-t lite criticifm ; Re^e fcrtajfis reddatur rubefa6^a, fci licet, feu /anguine in/eSia vel cruentata, feu cruenta &' carnivora animalia. And the judicious Poole fays, in his Annotations, " The v/ord in the Heb, iignifies to dye or color; and interpreters are here divided, whether to interpret it of a bird colored by nature (fo our tranflators underftood it, and therefore have tranflatcd li/peckled) or by accident, as ravenous birds," (or beafts) "are colored by the * Digitata, h;c efi rapax, iiticis tit^uitus in prxdam hivolans. Buxtorf. Fuller. Milcel. Sac. bloo4 ( i66 ) 'Hood of other birds killed by them."i: It feems to me, however, that, if we are to argue natu- rally from the root to tl>e branch, or from the caufe to the effc'6^; becaufe birds or beafts uncis unguibus digitata, color themfelvcs with the blood of their prey, therefore the Htbrew word is transferred to any animals fpeckled by nature as v.- ell zs fpotkd through accident. And, if we apply thefe correfpondent criticifms to the point in de- bate; is it not evident that, fmce the Hebrew word is ufed for a thing /potted or fpeckled, whether by nature or accident, therefore it cannot poffibly be confined to the idea of dipping? and m^uch lefs to that of overivhelming? imlefs the Anabaptilts will infift that immeriion is effential to the fpotting or fpeckling of any thing, or that it cannot be colored v/ithout being dipt ? which furely they will not be fo abfurd as to maintain, in the face of ftubborn inatter of fafi:. So that the critical reader may judge, when Dr. 5". from Gale, and Mr. M. from his oracle, triumphantly declare, that the Chaldee word in Daniel always lignifies 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 Trommius and Leigh? whofe concurrent criticifms are founded on the analogy of fcripture ? I See Tso}c'$ AnBOtations on Jcf. xii. 9. (3) That ( i67 ) (3) That the Hebrew word in Daniel cannot: al- ways fignify dipping is evident from the Latin words, by which lexicographers tranflate it. Leigh in his Critica Sacra, tranllates it by the words. madefacia, colore inficio, cokro j . to wet, fiain, color. And whether a thing cannot be ivet, fiained 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 thefe two Latin words; to the former of which, Lyttletoii in his Latin DIdionary, beiide other lignifications, gives that of " fpri7ikling." But of this, 1 pro- pofe giving farther proof in another place. In 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. 6". in- iiead of his critical aid-de-camp at IVre.xhamy to correal the prefs for him. 5 As Mr. Ad. feems to have borrowed the prin- cipal parts of his arguments and critlcifms on the pafiage in Dan. from Dr. .S". the abfurdity and miftakes which he has retailed, neceilanly 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 affertion from the latter. " Admitting " that there is a difficulty in this pailage {oi Dan.) *' it is to be obferved, that the word {^ccTfjjj) m ^^ moft other places, Adhere the Septuagint ufe it, " fo ( i68 ) *' fo necefiarlly lignifies dipping, that It Is impof- " ftble for our author or any one elfe, to give " it a different meaning."* I am glad the Docflor acknowledges there is fome " difficulty^' in the paffage he alludes to; and I hope when he more maturely reviews the arguments of his opponents, he will find there lies in the way of his firained interpretation a greater difficulty ftill. When he fays, that the word ^a^oo lignifies dpping in ** mo/f " other places" of the Septuagint; he compara- tively fays nothing: becaufe, unlefs he can prove, that it has that (ignification in ail other places, he does not prove his point ; for, a Jingle inftance, wherein it fignifies a wetting by effufion or afper-^ fion of water, or even a partial immerfion, over- turns all his arguments ; fince the Do6tor, 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 ^a,rfloo and <^oi7fji(M fignify to dip — that they always have that ngnification — and both the one and the other always iignify to dip by a total immerfion, 6 However, if the teftimony of other critics and divines may be fuppofed of equal weight with that of Dr. 5. or his borrow er in Liverpool, I beg leave to lay before the reader the concurrent opi- nion of two perfons^ who manifeftly differ from the two Anabaptirts. The firft of thefe two great men, is, the learned Dr. Pocock. Refpeding the Signification of the Hebrew tebel, he fays, after ac- knowledging it fignifies to dip, yet adds, *' it * ReHTavks : P. ^4. '* does ( i69 ) ** does not necejjarily point out a dipping of the " whole body." The other is Schindkry who ren- ders the Flebreiv word tinxit) intinxit, and further adds, '' lia lavit, ut res non mundeiur, fed tantum ATTiNGAT humoYem^ vel totd, vel ex parte." III. From the foregoing obfervations, I hope^ it has been made appear, how fallacious and incon- clulive is Mr. Ad.'s reafoning about the neceffity of preferving the idea of covering or overwhelming all overj 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 i. And here I cannot help expreliing my aflonifh- ment, that Mr. M. or Dr. S. or any other Anabap- tift lliould fo ftrenuoufl}f contend for a total im.- merlion in baptifm, lince they themfelves are reduced to the inevitable neceffity 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 Doctor) I readily allow. " For, what is true of any one part, may be /aid " of the WHOLE complexly." * But the Do(51:or drops another ftill more remarkable conceffion, in p. 117, of his Anfwer to IVall, '* The word " ^(ZTfjiQf:, does not fo neceflarily exprefs the " a^ion of putting under water; as in general, a *' thing's being in that condition, no matter how *' it comes fo; whether it is put into the water or ** the water comes over it." Wheth^ this gen- tleman has not by thefe unfortunate declarations * See Gak'i Reflexions on TFcirs Hiflory, page 139. Y given ( 17® ) given up the whole matter at once ; betrayed the- eaufe of Anabaptifm ; and rendered a great part of his voluminous Anfwer to Mr. IVall nugatory and fuperrluous, 1 leave the reader to judge. And that our mode of adrainiiiering baptifm by pouring ox fprinkling of water, is flridly 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 ^aTfji^u), the Do(5\or confelTes, that, " it does not fo necef- " farily exprefs the ai^ion of putting under water, *' as in general., a thing's being in that conditicn-J* and he exemplifies this declaration, by the ftate of a fca-caaft, which, according to Arijlotle, 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 conceftion. If then, accord- ing to the Do6tor, <^oi7f]i^oo does not exprefs the ai^ion oi putting under water, it certainly is appll- caple to the fituation of a perfon, upon whom water is poured; and fuch a perfon may be faid to be baptized: II. If it be urged, that dipping, not pouring or fprinkling, 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 under water, "no matter how it comes so." Aiad ( 171 ) And furely, a perfon may be under water, when 'a falls upon him in the diftillations of the rain or dew ; as in the ca.{e 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- miniftered either by effujion or ajperfion, his bap- tifm is valid. III. But it will 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 inconliftent with Dr. G.'s conceffions : for, even when he is fo felf- contradi6iory, as to iniiti on dipping, as ejjtntial to the due adminiftration of the ordinance, yet he allows that a total immerfion Is not neceiTary ; and, as his own conceffions juftify the baptifm of an individual, when he is not put under water, but when the water comes over him, *' no matter how" therefore, if an immergmg only "a. part may, according to the Do6\or, 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 part, be termed a baptifm of the whole man ; ac- cording to a favorite maxim of the Doctor, " What *' is true of any one part, may be faid xf the *' WHOLE complexly." IV. What becomes then of all the arguments of Anabaptifts, 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 conceffion of their y 2 champion ( 172 ) champion Dr. Gale, which crowns the whole? " 1 readily allow, that the word (baptize) does " not necejfarily imply a total immerlion." 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 concefTion he illi^ftrates by the example of the hyfop mentioned Exod. xii. 22, and that of a pen. Refpecfting the former, he acknowledges, that the hyjfop itfelf might be fa id to be dipt, '* though not dipt all over." And as to the liate , 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: FFhat is true of any one part, may ** be /aid of the whole complexly." V. When Dr. G. fays, p. 168. '^ If 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 afk much lefs than will fuit the caufe of Anabaptifm, or give the leaft color of rational argument to the whole of his tedious animadverfioRS on /'K3//? And what has the verbofe refleder been contending for ? that f^arPj^^j and ^cc7fji(^c^i fignify to dip? Alas! he might have fpared all his unmeaning verbolity ; for that his antagonift never denied. Had his proofs been at all to the purpofe, they iTiould have demon- i^rated, that the Greek words are perfedly the fame, and always lignlfy to dip ; or that their lig- nification will admit of no other valid mode of applying the baptifmal water, but by immerfion. Has ( 173 > Has he proved this? No ; his own conceflions il- luftrated by the ftate of Nebuchadnezzar's body, as well as that of the fea-coaft in Arijiotle, are plump againft him; and particularly his appolite maxim, that a perfon or thing is baptized, if it be under the water, " no matter hoiv 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 ejjintial to the mode of baptifm? No; that he has abfolutely given up. By acknow- ledging, when a part only of the hv/Jbp was dipt in the blood, and the 7iib of the pen only is dipt in the ink, that both the hyjfop and pen might ncverthelefs, be faid to have been dipt; he ma- nifeftly allows a partial dipping in baptifm. For, if his maxim, " IfTiat is true of any one part, is " true cf the whole complexly" be applicable to the cafe of the hyjfop and pen j it is confcquently offeree in refpe^t to baptifm j and fo inJeed the " deeply-learned Do6lor" as the twin-difputant flyles him, acknowledges; " Let the word relate *' to the whole body or a part of it, / ajk no more" And we " aik no more" to prove, that the can- did Dodor feems to have not fufficlently weighed the consequence of his own declarations. — We *' aik no more" to prove, that his conceffions fully juftify the modes of baptizing by pouriyig, fprinkling ; and that the dipping any part of the body is as valid a baptifm, even in the Doctor's own eftimatlon, as an im.merlion of the whole. — We " afk no more" to prove, that the " deeply- learned" Do61or has amaiTed together a prodi* glous ( 174 ) glous cargo of quotations from authors facred and profane, to no purpofe ; iince ten thoufand inftances, wherein f^ocvfliQ^ lignifies to dipt are of no fervice to the caufe ; unlefs they excluded eirny other fignification, 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, pradtife a total dipping; they aft with that unrelaxing ftiff- nefs, which is a peculiar chara6leriftic of down- right bigotry; and, that when fo trivial a cir- cumflance, as a non-agreement with them re- fpe^iing the quantity of water or the mode of appli- cation, will induce them to ftand aloof from their brethren; they too manifeftly clals with thofe who make the kingdom of God to confift as much in meat and drink, as in righteoufnefs, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghq/i ; and are real objeds of pity, if conlidered as under the unhappy influ- ence of that bigotry, which prompts ihem to contend for what is abfolutely indefenlible even upon the declarations of the literary Goliah of their caufe. CHAP. ( ns > CHAP. V. Baptismal ASPERSION an emblematical reprefen- tation of our juftification by the blood, and of our fanoiification by the Spirit of Christ. — The objec- tions of Mr. M. and his oracle on this head, con- fronted with fcripture, reafon, and the firiking tejiimonies of Calvin, Beza, Tilenus, Voffius,. Lightfoot, ^c, — Dr. S.'s criticifm on the liapo^oig l^ocTrjio-ixoig dIvers baptifms. mentioned in Heb. ix, lo; as ivell as his wonderful do6irine of genus and fpecies, by ivhich it is fupported, proved to be equally fallacious 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, in order to warrant the adminiftering of the ordi- nance by fprinkling. As our fandification by the Spirit, and our juftification by the blood of Christ, are frequently mentioned under that term ; and as both are emblematically reprefent- ed in baptifm; we therefore maintain, that the ordinance, founded on this natural analogy is duly adminiftered by afperjion. Mr. M. there- fore, when in his ufual cavalier ftyle he aiks, p. 1 8, " What becomes of your fprinkling many " nations, fprinkling clean water, and pouring out *' of the Spirit, which are all figurative f" inftead of invalidating, in the leafl, thofe arguments, which ( I?^ ) which i laid before him on a former occalidfi^ rather fuggefls a hint, which corroborates mine, and enervates the force of his own reafoning : for, when he acknowledges the above expreflions are ^' figurative J' he manifeftly grants they con- tain a figure of fomething; which, I fnppofc, he will acknowledge to be that of a linner's juftifi- cation by xht fprinkling of the Redeemer's blood; and of his renewal, by the fprinkling of his Spirit, imder the emblem of clean water. If then, the fprinkling oi blood, the fprinkling o^zvater, and the pouring out of fire, are lignificantly "figurative'" of our juftification and fancftification ; why may not the fprinkling or pouring out of water, be a proper figure of thefe two blellings, in the admi- niftration of baptifm ? and confequently, v/hy may not the ordinance, repiefenting fuch 2. 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 wafh you in clean water, — the baptifm of " the blood of Christ, he. how readily would *' our adverfaries have urged their ftrong allufion *' to dipping! But, becaufe the terms manifeftly countenance the contrary mode; therefore their allulive analogy in favor of fpri?ikling, &.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 correfpondenC afperfion of water, only furniihes them with a frcih opportunity of difcovcring their (what Dr.- 5. calls) " hitter antipathy" to allufions and ana- logy ;• ( i77 ) logy- for the ufe of which, at other convenient feafons they manifefl: the moft panial veneration. Eefides, If, becaufe expreifions are "figurative,'' they therefore " give no direSlion for water- bap- tlfm," as Mr. M.'s ckmnfy di(5iion allerts j 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 rcafoning, here, favors more o( real ox figurative nonfenfe, I leave to the judgment of the difcerning reader. As Mr. M. has fimply hinted an obje6lion or two againft my allulive reafoning, without con- lidering one of the arguments, by which it is fup- ported ; I Ihall therefore take my leave of him for a moment, and face his oracle. Proceed we then to confider the ground of the Do61or's cavils againft what we think the analogy between our mode of baptifm by afperiion, and I. The fprinkling of the blood of Christ. Againft this he fays, " This mode of adminif- " tering the ordinance as an emblematical rtpre- *' fentation of our juftification hath no foundation ** in the word of God.".* In this affcrtion, equally bold as falfe, the Docflor denies two things; firfi, that the baptifmal Vvalliing is an emblem of our juftification through the blood of Christ; Jecondly; and confequently, that the mode of ad- miniftering baptifm, founded on the luppofcd analogy, is unfcriptural. From one of Dr. S.'s profeffed veneration for fcripturc and logic, one * Remarks, P. 120. Z would ( 17^ ) would not have expelled fo rafh a declaration ; at leaft, we might have cxpefled it couched in more diffident and modeft language. But, what are the arguments, on which he grounds his ne- gative ? (i) He fays, " ckavfing is much better " effeded by dipping than fprinkling." But, as the queftion, is not, whether *' clcanfing is much '* hetkr etfeded by dipping than fprinkling," buc whether it is effeded at all by the latter; in order to give conclufivenefs and conliftency to his af- fertion, he lliould have roundly declared, that ^^ cleanling is never eife6ied 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 obligedj, as an advocate for the effentiality of dip- ping, to maintain. His qualifying phrafe, " much better," therefore, gives up the point, and proves his inconliftency. But when the Doflor infinu- ates, that, becaufe the body is much better waOied by dipping than fprinkling of water, therefore baptifm is much better adminiftered by Immerlion than afperlion; 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 afperjion, en the quantity and particular mode of applying water, requilite to wafhing the body-, is he not aware, that, by demanding fuch exaft corref- pondencc betv/een the Jign and thing ft gnified, he furnilhes c 179 ) farnhlics us with an argument, not only againft immerlion, but even againft every other mode of baptizing whatever. For, if dipping be a tnucli better way of cleanjing, than fprinkling; 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 do6^rine of re- ftridive analogy, ought to be pradifed, in bap- tifm. And, as the Dodor acknowledges, (p 122) *' that the word fprinkling is ufed to exprefs clean- *' ftng," as in the cafe of the leper under the law; yet, to be coniillent, he ibould have maintained, that the cleanfing of the leper would have been *' much better' effe6led by his being dipt all over in the typical blood, than by being only fprinkled with it. See! in what abfurd trifling this mode of reafoning terminates ! But, that the Dodor may be alliamed of fuch trifling, and not alliamed to give it up, upon the teftimony of a great author, I will lay before him a part of Cyprians letter to Magnus. " In the facrament (of bap- ** tifm) the contagion of fln is not walbed away, *' as the filth of the body is in a carnal bath, as that *' there lliould be any need of 2. feat to lit upon, " of foap, and d.JjJli-pond, which are generally re- " quifite to cleanfe the body. The breaft of a •' believer is wafhed in a different manner. ** To thofe that believe, the divine abridgment " divina compendia conveys the whole benefit." "t" •j- In Jacramento, non deliBoritm contagla, tit in Invncro carnali forties corporh abluuntur, ut aphronilris, & fiUo ir pifciiia opus fit, quibus ahlui corpiifaihtin pcjfit. Alitcr pccins credent'is abliiitur. Totum credent ibits conferunt bivuna COMPENDIA. Cypr. Epifl. 76. P. 249. Z 2 B/ ( i8o ) By the divina compendia, Cyprian means the com-' pendious mode of h?i^i\z\ng hy fpr inkling -, which he confirms and illuftrates by the appolite fcrip- tures, Ezek. xxxvl. 25, 26. Num.xix. 19, 20, and chap. viii. 6, 7. (2) The Dodlor thinks he is furniihed with a formidable argument againft the fcriptural vali- dity of baptizing by afperfion, becaufe, though a fprinkling under the law, was called a ckanfing, yet it was a fprinkling by blood; and he thinks this dilTerence 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 feems to be moft properly ad- *' miniftered, not only by Jprinkling, 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 eafily difcovered by any one, who is converfant in the nature of fcripture-allulions, and is, in any to- lerable degree acquainted with the method of reafonlngi our author himfelf adopts upon other occafions. The Doi^or's obje6lion, founded on the difference between blood and zvater, equally invalidates and overthrows feme of his own fa- vorite allulions. For, if no analogy can be drawn from the manner of cleanfing by the fprinkling of bloody to a correfpondent mode of adminif- tering baptifm by water, becaufe a fprinkling €)f blood is not a fprinkling by "juater ; then, the * Remarks, iiliem. fame ( i8i ) fame obje61loa is of equal, if not greater force, againft the Doiftor's darling analogy from the baptifm of the Spirit under the emblem oi fire, to that of baptifm by an immeriion in water-, hec3.u(e Jire and ivater are elements diametrically oppolite. So that, v/hen the Doflor, by a drain- ed iimilitude, reprefents and recommends immer- sion under the figure of metal " laid under the " refiner's fire;" if 1 were difpofed to turn the edge of his reafoning againft himfelf, and to dete6^ the weaknefs and fophlftry of his objec- tions to our allufive arguments in favor of fprink- ling, I might, mutatis mutandis, fay; '* Nor Ihould *' 1 have much wondered, if the Doilor had *' added, that baptifm feems to be moft pro- " perly adminiftered by an immerfion in fire " infiead oi water." And, by adopting the fame mode of addrefs which concludes p. i2o, of his Remarks on Mr. Jddlngtons Trcatife, 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 praftifed a mock-baptifm, by fire," (3J From the following conceffion In p. 122, one would be almoft inclined to think the Dodor was in a meafure reconciled to our allufion In favor of fprinkling ; at leaft that he Intended meeting us halfway. *' What Baptift, Sir, Is fo *■ grievoufiy otfended with the word fprinkling, *' as not to allow it is ever ufed to exprefs puri- " fying ( l82 ) ** fy'mg or dcanfing ? I anfwer, Dr. 5". is the '* Baptiji" who is thus " grievoiijly offended-^' otherwlfe, wherefore doth he fuppofe that our allulive arguments are the rclult of an imagina- tion, giving itfelf full fcope, hke that of Peter's fuccejj'or at Rome? But, notwithftanding the above concciiion, he fays (,p. 120) " nor hath the phrafe " of the blood of fpr inkling any the leafi: reference •' to baptifm." '1 hat is, Dr. S.Jays fo, and there- fore to be fure, it mull; be fo. But, has not bap- tifm the leaft reference to the blood of fpr inkling f Yes, moft certainly, the Doclor himfelf being witnefs : For he acknowledges that '' the word " fprinkling is ufed to exprefs ckanjing." But cleanling is ufed to exprefs baptifm as a wafliing with uater. And as w^ are faid to be cleanfed by the blood of fprinkling; yea, to be ivajlied 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 oi fprinkling ; why may we not be faid to be facramentally wafhed by a baptifm of fprinkling. Is not the validity of this mode eftablillied by the ceremonial cleanlings by afperfion 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? Rather, has not his own concefTion, that " fprinkling is ufed to exprefs ** cleaning" fullv eftabliflied the very fentiment he ( i83 ) he intended to oppofe ? And, to prove that the argument, thus far has the fandion of an emi- nent lexicographer's concurring opinion, 1 need, only quote Leigh's Critica Sacra. Under the Greek word Aj?pov he fays, " Jn the facred fcriptures it *' is fpoken of baptifm: Ephef. v, and in tiie epift. " to Tit. chap. iii. It is met apkoric ally fpjken of *' the blood of Chrisi, by which, our fouls are " wajlitd and cleanfcd from the filth of fin."* (4) Having thus far coniidercd, and I hope refuted too, the principal obje(?tions ot the Do61:or (for, arguments 1 cannot call themj) let us look back' to his politive aliertion in p. izoj where he fays, " this mode of adminiftering the ordinance *' as an emblematical reprefentation of our juf- " tification hath no foundation in the word of *' God." I hope the reader has received fonie fatisfa6lory evidence, that the Do6for's zeal here hath precipitated him into a manifeft miftake : and, that the allufion contended for, has received not a little fupport from his own pen. He has acknowledged that " the word Jprinkling is ufed *' ior cleanjing" and that there is an all.ulion to baptifm in the term wajhing of regeneration. Now, if a thing fprinkled is faid to be cUanfed, it may be with equal propriety faid to be wojhed-, lince the former is an etFe6t and confequence of the latter : and fo indeed, what the apoftle Faul calh " having the heart fprinkled from an evil con- * In facrh Uteris dicitur de baptifmo ; tit Ephef. 5, & in ep'J}. (ziTitura, tap. 2). Metaphcrice dicitur dc iangine Chrifli, quo aninut nojtriz a peccati fir- /libiis abhmntur & pur^aiitiir. Critica Sacra. P. 160. '* faience," ( iH ) ** fcience," St. John terms being " wajlied In his *' blood," and "■ ckanJecV' by it from lin. Rev.i. 5. I John i. 7. But the term wajhing and the idea it implies is transfered to baptifm ; confequently the fcrlptures reprefent it as an emblem of a fpiritual cleanfing -, elfe, why do they ufe the phrafes *' ivajliing of regeneration; wajliing of wa- ** ter by the word; baptifm doth mivfave us,not the ** wafhing away the filth of the flelh, but the an- *' fwer of a good confcience," rendered fo, by the vrafliing of the blood and Spirit of Christ ? If therefore baptifm be an emblem of a fpiritual v/afhing, (which the Do6lor cannot deny, without flying in the face of God's word;) and if that fpiritual walhing 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 firfi part of the Doctor's falfe pofition. But the fpiritual walliing of the confcience in jufti- iication is reprefented under the term fprinklingi 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 admlniftering it: which was the fecond point to be proved, (5) And now, that I may convince the Doclor, that my reafoning on this head is not altogether fingular J but that it flands fupported by the tef- timony of fome very great men : And that I ..mav at once expofe the novelty and futility of all bis ( i85 ) Ills boafted objedlons, I will prefent him with a few venerable names, ivhofe authority is unquef- tionably as great as that of any or all the Ana- baptifts in the world. I Ihall begin with Calvin i 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 blood, * that we may feek our purification from it : ' and fince 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 fiibjiance 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 lins and imputa- * tion of his righteoufnefs ; which are as it were * fet forth before our eyes extern^e asper- * siONis ftgno by the fign of outward sprin- * kling" in baptifm. •f Tilenus is equally firong and exprefs in favor of the emblematical reprefentation. " — The analogy of the facra- I Jn aqua, udttt in fpeculo sancuinem nohh fuum Chriftus repriffeiitaty ut Tnunditicm inde noftram petamus : qtium docet nos Spiritu fuo refmg't, at mortui peccato jtijlitiie vivamits, nihil quod ad baptifnii fiihjiantiam facial, deejfe nobis terttm ejl. Calvin, in Adl Apofl. viii. 38. P. 224. f Res ipfa laptifmi eft aspersio sanguinis Jefu Chrifti in remijfwnem fcccalorum & imputationem juftifu ip/iiis, qu£ velut oculis noftris fubjiciunlur externa aspersionis eigno. Thcod. Bcz. Tracft. Theolog. Vol. i. dc S. Sp. Ch. iv. P, 22. A a. *' ment ( 1^6 ) " ment may be preferved no less in fprinkling ** than in dipping : for, in the purifications un- " der the law JprinkUngs 'pcy.flia-jxoi were fuffici- " ent."* Vossius is not lefs fo. ** Baptifm *' is a facrament inftituted by Christ, that by " it we might be grafted into the church ; with ** this promile, that no lefs certainly than we *' are outwardly vjqjlied with water, we are in- ** wardly wcjhed by the blood and Spirit of *' Christ." And again. — " Our inward wafh- " ing from fin by the blood 2nd Spirit of Christ " is clearly fignified 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 walhing away " the filth of the body ? Becaufc there is ayccKoyiOi " an ANALOGY between the oidivard walhing " with WATER, and the /wu'jrii cleanling by the " BLOOD and Spirit of Christ. "-f To the above teflimonies permit me to add that of Dr. Light FOOT. '* To denote this wafhing by a "facramental iign, a JprinkUng of water is as *' SUFFICIENT as ail immerfion y lince the one * — Ntc MINUS in ASPERSIONE quam in hnmcrfwne, facramenti analogia fcrvetur ; ftquidem in Ugaiihis pirificationihus fiifficiehant ^oculia-fAoi, Tilen. Difp. i. de bapt. Tliefl". xv. f Baptismus eft facrafnentum a Chr'i^io infiiUiUim, lU per illud ecclejix in- fer amur ; cum hac prontiffwne , qaod non minus certo quani aqua cxtrinfecus lavanmr, etiam intrinfectis a pcccatis ahluimur per fanguinem ir Sfiritum Chrifti J;itriii'cca per fang. & Spir. Chrifti ahlutlo a peccalis & dare noils fgnetiir 4x ccrto ohfignetur de Bapt. Cur t'cro liqttore, corporis fordes abluente, fa- eramcntum hoc perfici mandavit Jefus ? In caufa c": p-yctXtiyia. inlcr aHutia~ nem e.\icrnar,i qua aqu^^ fit, & intcrnam qu£ fit fan^uiue & Spiritu Chrifti. VolT. Be Bapt. Difp. i. Thcf. i. P. 542.— lii;/. P. 34J.— Jiit'. Thcf. iv. ?• 347. ** really ( iS7 ) " really argues a waJJiing, as well as the " other, "•!• " Efpeclally," fays Keckerman, ' " fince (xvocXoyioi the analogy of fignilication re- " mains, and our pollution may be waflied away " by that aspersion.":!: 1 lliall clofe thefc flriking quotations with the teftlmony of Walr- us. " Which rite (that is afperfion) the word *' ^ixv](a-iMoi favorsj which is ufed concerning the " blood of Christ. Heb. ix. 14." § From the unanimous teftimony of thefe refpe6t- able Critics, it muft at firft light appear evident to any reader, that they concur in eftablifhing the fentiment which Dr. 5". treats with much con- tempt ; and in eftablilhing it too on fcripture- grounds. So that, according to them, it is plain, (i) That baptifm is an emblem of fpiritual wafh- ing by the blood of Christ; and confequently, of our juftification. (2) That there Is not only an analogy between the external walhing with water, and the internal purification of the heart by the blood of Christ, in general; but that this analogy fublifts between this internal purifi-» cation and baptifmal aspersion, in particular. (3) And therefore that fprinkling, thus founded f Ad banc ahltitlonem sacramentali sicno, denctandam satis est ASPERSio aqiiiC, xqiic ac in aquam immerjio ; cum revera ahlutionem ac purifi- cat'wnem hxc arguat iEq^uE ac ijla. Dr. Lightfoot. Horas Hebi-aicae in Matth. ill. 6. P. 49. I Frxferthn cum ccviyJKoyia. figmficat'ionh innneat, & aspeksione ill J for- ces ahluuntur. Keckerman. Syftem Theolog. L. iii. C. viii. P. 452. § Cui ritiii (fc. aspersioni) favet & vox ^«mo"j(*o> ; qu:i de sanguine Chrifti itfiirpatur, Heb. iv. 14. WalsEUS. Synops. Pur. Tbeolog. Difp. xliv, Thefl", iix. P. 606. A a 2 on ( i88 ) on fcripture-analogy is a very Hgnificant mode of adminiftering baptlfm ; becaufe it exhibits an emblematical reprefentation of our juftification by the blood of Christ. (4) That the applica^ tion of this analogy to baptifm is not only war- ranted by fcripture, but is farther authenticated by the concurrent opinions of fuch venerable names, as thofe of, Calvin, Beza, "Tilenus, VoJJius, Lightfoot, Keckerman, and IValam. With fuch refpe(5table 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 I fancy there is no occalion to 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 Ghofi in his word ; to underftand the do6irine of fcripture- analogy; and to fix the laws of facred criticifm, as all the Anabaptifts 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 helitate for a moment, on which fide of the queftion to give his fentence of approba- tion. II. The fame mode of reafoning, by which v/e maintain the fcriptural propriety of baptizing by afperlion, drawn from the analogy it bears to our juftification by the fprinkling of the hhod of Christ, is equally forcible, when applied to the fcripture -reprefentations of our renewal by his ^prit. Or, in other words"; as we ground the validity of baptifmal afperfion on the phrafes — the ( l^ ) the blood of sprinkling — washed in his blood-- it CLEANSETH froM all ftn, &c. — on the applica- 'tion of a limilar phrafeology to the purificauons under the law ; on the manifeft convertibility of the terms fprinkling, ckanjing, wajliing ; and on the natural and well-fupported analogy between the baptifmal ^^;2 and the thijig Jigmficd'.'f fo we af- fert, that as the influences of the Spirit are pro- mifed In the terms of " fprhiklij7g clean water;'* and as baptlfm is a lign of thofe influences, and an emblematical reprefentation of their cleanfing etFeft; therefore the mode of adminiftering bap- tlfm by fprinkling is farther fupported by this fu- peradded analogy. — But let us fee what Dr. §. has to fay againft this. I Upon that text " I will fpr inkle clean water ■* uponyou, and ye JJiall be clean," E%tk. xxxvi. 25; he lays, p. 122. " The leper might be fprinkled, " and thereupon pronounced clean." But the leper not only " mightht" but adually zva^ fprin- kled, and pronounced a^lually clean.^ And if a leper was legally cleanfed by fprinkli?ig ; why may not a perfon be facr anient ally cleanfed by a cor- f N. B. That there is fuch ?.n analogy, Mr. iS't. himfelf acknowledges in page ao, in the following words. " Baptilm is a lively emblem of *' INWARD WASHING." * " And he (the prieft) 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 wafhing of his flefn, fubfequent upon that, was prepara- tory to his introduction to the camp, and to his tent. And, whereas the DocTcor fuppofes, that this vjafchig was by immerlion, he fhould re- member that the Hebrew word ufed ver. 9, is not telel ; and therefore that this wafliing was not fpccifically by dipping, much lefs a dipping of the whole body. refpondent ( I9P ) refpondent mode in baptifm? As the leper's pu- rification was not lufpended on the quantity of the blood: fo neither does the reality oi baptifm 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 againii this he ar- gues, " The prophet might fay in reference to " that ceremony, I iv i II fpr inkle ckan water, &c." But this is an egregious blunder; and I can no otherwife account for the Dodor'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- willing to point it out ; becaufe it would etfe^lu- ally overturn all his labored arguments againfl 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." Belides, how can the Dodor poUibly fuppofe the prophet to make any allulion to the legal purifi- cation by blood F when the cleanling promifed in Ezekiel, is to be effeded by clean water F, and when this very gentleman's principal argument againfl our analogy, drawn from the cleaning the leper by fprinkling of blood to a correfpondent mode of adminiflering the baptifmal water, is founded on the diiference of the matter of thefe refpedive inflitutions ? 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 ) iibillty. But this Is not the cafe. A remarkable mode of this nature is recorded in Num'wm. 6, 7. *' Take the Levites from among the children of " Ifrael, and ckanje them. And thus Ihalt thou *' do unto them to cleanfe them : Sprinkle *' water of purifying upon them ; and let them " Ihave all their tlelh j and let them walh 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 inflance, the purification of their perfons was to be etle6^ed through the fprinkUng of water. A mode this, repeatedly enjoined in Num. xix. If any perlbn touched a dead body and did not purify himfelf, according to the di- vine inftitution ; that perfon was to be cut off from Ifrael: the reafon of which fevere proce- dure is mentioned in Ver. 13. " That foul Ihall *' be cut otf from Ifrael, becaufe the water of ftpa- ** ration zuas not sprinkled upon him." And, fo very firi(5l 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 vej/els, and all the ptrfons pre- fent, v/ere to undergo a general cleanfmg; which was to be performed thus. " For an unclean per- " fon they fliall take of the alhes of the burnt " heifer of purification for fin, and running wa~ *' ter lliall'be put thereto in a vefiTel : and a ciean " perlbn fhall take hyfibp, and dip it in the water, " and SPRINKLE it upon the tent, and upon all *' the veflels," &c. Ver. 17, 18. And of thofe who ^' "" neglected ( 19^ ) negle^led this mode of purification, it is again laid, *' That foul Ihall be cut off from among the ** congregation becaufe he hath defiled the fanc- ** tuary of the Lord ; the wakr of feparation hath *' not been sprinkled upon him,'' Ver. 20. •!• Now that this fprinkling of the water of purifi- cation was a legal baptijm or waJJiing, appears evident from the reference of the Son of Sy rack to this very mode of purification, and from his ap- plication of the word ^c/.tFJ 1(^00. *' He that is walhed *' 0 Surificatus, extcnninalitur aniiva ilia de Ifrael, quoniam aq^ua aspersionis non eft super earn sparsa. Et iteru7tf, Dominus ad Moyfen, dicens, Acdpe Levitas, & furifcahis eos; & it a facie s eii purificationem, circumsparges eos aqua purtfcationis ; & iterum, ac^ca AspERDioNis purificuilo cf." Epifl. Ixxvl. P. 2jO. eeremony ( 193 ) ceremony was typical of an evangelical purlfica- lion ; therefore the fpiritual 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 fan6^ificatIon ; and as a purllication under the law, and a cleanling under the gofpel, are both reprefented under ihc term fprinkling of water ; the inferential argu- ment is, that a baptlfmal afperfion, being a cor- refpondent emblem of both, is therefore valid, by the force of a double analogy. Nor has Dr. iS". urged a lingle obfervation, capable of invalidat- ing this analogical inference. Rather, all that he has objecSled to it, is either plaulible evafion, or mere ipfe dixit. And that our analogical reafoning here has the fancSlion of orthodox antiquity, there is no need to inform the reader, when he recolledls the venerable authorities I have already laid be- fore him, refpe6ling the analogy between the fprinkling of the hlood of Chj^ist and baptlfmal afperfion.^ For, the teftimonies, 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 fick, *' when they are baptized, have water only poured " or SPRINKLED on them J lince the Scrip- ** ture fays by the prophet Ezek, xxxvi. 25; / • See P. 185, 186, 187. B b «f will ( ^94 ) ** will SPRINKLE clean water, b^c."^ — Tilenus is of the fame opinion refpeiling baptlfm, 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 fandification by his Spi- *' rit."X. This teftimony of Tilenus is the more valuable, inafmuch as it eftabliihes the two-fold emblem, 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 fymbol 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 wajfied with water, is moji appofitely repre- *'■ fented in baptifm."'!' Once more, therefore, I call upon the judici- ous reader to weigh, in the ballance of candor, thefe and the preceding teiVimonies^ againfl: the obje(5iions of Dr. 5. and the cavils of Mr. M. And I leave him to determine, on which lide truth is moft likely to preponderate. Had we neither fcripture nor antiquity to countenance * Kec quenqitam; vtovere debet, quod afpergi vcl perfundi Tjidcantur icgri ; qmndc Scriptura SaiiBa per Ezechielem propbctam loquitur. Afpergam fuper ^os aqnani mundam, &c. Cyprian. Epift. Ixxvi. • f Speciaiirn vera He proponltur nobis remijfio peecatoriim in ipfius fatiguine, ir finliifieatio in ipfius Spiritii. lilen. Syntag. de. Bapt. I Thef. x. P. 887. ■\ UfC autem repurgatio, five niergamur, y/rf perfundamiir,, five aspek.- GAM.uu, ("it quocmiqiie niodo aquis abluarnur, in baptifmo appofitiffime demoiiftra- >,.T. Pet. Martyr, in i Cor. x, Fol, 141. our ( 195 ) bur fenthnerits; they might, in that cafe, be equal- ly fufpccSlcd of error and novelty. But, when it be confidcred, that a purification under the law, was elie6led by a sprinkling, and a fprinkling of WATER too (a circumftance which repels the force of Dr. S.'s capital objedliions to one branch of our analogy, founded on the difference in matter, between the element in baptifm, and that ufed in fome legal purifications') ; — that an in- fpired prophet makes a manifeft allulion to that mode of purification, as figurative of our inward cleanfing by the Spirit of Christ; — That the allulive promife in Ezekiel is quoted by Cyprian, and applied to a vindication of the mode of bap- tifmal afperfion ; — that the analogy is farther fup- ported by the correfpondent fentiments of T'iienus and Peter Martyr-, as well as by the unanimous authority of thofe venerable names I mentioned before J — 1 fay, thefe things conlidered, I leave the reader to judge, whether Jcripture, antiquity, reafon, and facred criticijm do not unite, in con- firming the validity of adminijiering baptifm by SPRINKLING as an " emblematical reprefenta- *' tion" of our jufiification by the blood, and of mr fanSlification, by the Spirit (/Christ? III. Nor is the force of this reafoning weaken- ed, or the natural inference from it invalidated, by Dr. 5'.'s criticifm on the ufe of the word Aa\>.', in p. 12 5'! For, although it is not denied, that the application of that word in fome inftanccs fuppofes an immerfion ; yet it cannot poflibly admit of that Hgnification in every ufe of itj un- Bb 2 lefs ( 196 ) hfs the Doi5^or will maintain the abfurdity of fuppoling, that a thing can never be wafhed, un-^ lefs it be immerged. Belides, it ought to be re- membered, that the firi61nefs of the mode of ordinary wafhing is not to be made the ftandard oi JacrameTital ^\ir\^C2iX.ion; becaufe, ifimmerfion had been eflential to walbing or cleanling, in a facramental point of view ; in order to preferve an exa(5l fimilarity, all the purifications under the law, both by blood and water, fhould 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(ftnefs of the mode. So that, wherever mention was made of any wafhings, cleanfings, or purifications, whe- ther legal or evangelical, dipping ought to have been the invariable term. And fo, according to the fentiments of Anabaptifls, the words fprinkling, pouring, &c, ought to have no place in the Bible. When therefore Dr. 5". is inlifl:ing on immerlion as " necejfarily" requifite to ordinary walhing, I wilb he would recolle6l the judicious obfervation of Cyprian;, Aliter pedius ere dent 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 inftitutlons. In order to overturn the Do6k)r's inference from his fuppofed ufe of the word ?.i:^x-, I would ©bferve, (1} That if a thing or perfon may be fald ( ^91 ) faid to be ckanfed as an effe(5l of zvajliliig- ; ther2 if thai is called a ckarjing, which is performed only by fpiinkling, an afperjion may be properly flyled a wajliing. But, we have already feen, in .that remarkable cafe mentioned in Num. viii. and chap, xix J that a man defiled was clcanjtd by the SPRINKLING of the Water of fc par at ion ; co nfe- he was wajhed by it. From whsnce it is plain, that a facramental purification performed by fprinkling, is, according to fcripture, a facra- mental wajhing. And the argument, therefore, which the Do(flor would draw from the term *' waJJiing of regeyieration," retorts on himfelf; when it is confidered, that the work of regene- ration is manifeflly reprefented under the phrafes of *' the SPRINKLING of ckau 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 hlood of Christ, he may alfo be faid to be waflied in both* Other- wife, according to the Dodlor's idea there might be fuppofed fome incompletenefs in our Spiritual purification. (2) The application of the word y^.nM in fcripture, proves, that the idea of immerli- on is not necefiarily implied in it. Christ is faid Rev. i. 5, to have woJJicd us 7:iij-ocv^li in his blood. But furely it would be extremely abfurd, to argue from hence, that an immerfion in his blood necelfa- rily entered into the idea of our fpiritual cleanfing; efpecially when it is remembered, that the purifi- cations by typical blood under the law were ef- fedcd ( ^9^ ) fe6led by JprinkUng ; and that our antltypical pu- rification by the Redeemer's blood is almofl always mentioned under that term. (3) It Is faid in Acls xvi. 33, that the converted jailor took Faul and Silas and " wajlied their Jtripes^^' iy^dTiv' But it would be abfard to fuppofe, that either tht'ir perfons were totally immerged, or their gripes dipt, in the procels of this walhing. It is rather probable, that the jailor poured lome water, or Ibme medicinal fluid on the apofties' ftripes ; and that this was the mode of walhing on that occa- iion. Yet the word is '/.^x. (4) The Lord com- manded Mofes to make a laver of brafs Xt^/i^iz yc:?cif. for tlie priefts to ivq/Ji thereat. But how was this walliing to be performed? By a total im- mtriion ? No : for they were commanded only to walh ihclr feet and ha?2ds. But were not thefe dipt ? No : for they were to be waHied not sig in, but .-^ o:v!-d out of it. Fijfulds mult as habebat. (fays Poole, m his Synopjis in Loc.) per quas emittebatur aqua : It had fever al pipes, by which the water was let out. So that, howfoever a total walhing by immerlion might have been enjoined on other pccalions, it is manlfeft, that In the prefent cafe, the prieiis were walhed in the laver {7^^j,^, from /•.aa,) without any Immerlion at all. (5) Dr. S. quotes Hedericiis's Lexicon, as giving us the fol- lowing etymology of the v/ord. *'' Ayo; lavo, 6^ cuidem proprie corpus." f But the lexicographer does not mean, as the Doilor would inlinuate, that the Greek word, and the correfpondent Latin •f Remr.rks, P. 125. lavo. (^99) lavo, iignlfy to walh the whole body fpeclfically ; but to walli THE body or any part of it, in contra- diftin6^ion to the mode of waililng garments. And with this natural interpretation agrees the appolite obfervation of Athanafius, Hag y.a^ d- xoi9ci^T(^ sKasjo "v^ocji, cTtXvvsJo ^2 tk lyMJio:,' Every unclean per/on was washed with ivater, but his garments were plunged.* Here is a manifeft dillin. S. S. Tom. ii. P. 426. unlefs ( 200 } tmlefs It could be demonflrated, that it never included any other Hgnification. But to prove that this is not the cafe, let us hear the criticifm of* Pae^us : " Baptiftn among the Greeks is any " KIND of vvalhing or cleanling, whether it be " performed by imnierjion or sprinkling." *' {7) I Ihall clofe this part of the fubje6t with a re- markable paiTage from Jujiin Martyr, Having, among other arguments, alleged that fcrlpture Waspi ye^ make you clean, as a ground for keep- ing up an emblematical rcprefentatlon of the great truth it contains, by a baptifmal walhing ; he declares, that the very heathens to X^^^ov (xx.Ha-u!^3g having heard of this walhing in baptifm, intro- duced a reprefentation of it into their ritual. 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, Ihould ^cx,yjiQiy " soiv]-^; SPRINKLE themfelves/'f* Confonant with which reference of yiijlin Martyr to the rites of the heathens is the obfervation of GuUelmus 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 * B^PTirrviirs Grxcis qymvis eji lot 10 fdu Miil'w, five immerfwne five ASPERsioNK fiat. Par. in Heb. ix. 10. per- ( 201 ) *^ per cujtts ASPERSION EM they believed they were *' purified : and fo they made a figurative rer ** ference to baptifm." •f' From hence it evi- dently appears that afperfion of water was a mode of purification among the heathens ; that they borrowed this pracfllce from the chrif^ians j and confequently that baptifmal fprinkling is authen- ticated by the ufage of primitive chrif^Ianlty. So that what the heathens pra^lifed by fprinkling water of purification, yii/fin Martyr calls K^^ov a wajhing. But if to this It fhould be obje^led, that probably he meant to hlame the heathens* mode of purification as a piece of mimicry, or an ahufe of baptifmal wafhing ; fuch an obje^f^ion is elte^lually precluded by conlidering the very in- tent of the apologiji. For as Jiijlin was prefent- ing an apology for the rites of his brethren, of which baptifm was one ; he furely could never have fupported this branch of his apology, if the chriflians had always praflifed immerfion, when Jpriyikling was the ceremony among the heathens. For how could he make the pradice of afperfion a fufficient juf^ification of fo contrary a mode as that of dipping ? The baptifmal wajliing, there- fore, which the heathens heard of from the chrif- fians, Jufiin calls Ay/^oi^. But the heathens kept up an imitation of this walbing by fprinkling of water; and from this circumflance of fimilarity, the apologift juftified the prailice of his bre- f Et eft notandum, quod pagani five gentiles circa fontes templa fiia facers folehant, ant fulfem ihi fernper aquatn haheoant, per ctijus afperjtonem pwificari credehant : & ita quodammodo figuraliter ad baptifmian tendehant. Gul. Duraut. Rational. Divin. Cfficior. L. 6. Fol. 247. Col, I. C c thren. ( 202 ) fliren. A proof this, that afperfion Is a vaHtl mode of baptifmal zvaJJiing ; and is neither of fo recent, nor erroneous date, as the dippers would infinuate. IV. I am now naturally brought, from the con-^ nexion which one part of the fubjcd has with another, to confider the divers wajliings or liu^pc^oig ^(x.7fji(r[j.oig different baptifms mentioned in Heb ix. lu, Thefe wajhings under the law, were executed by various modes of applying water, fprinkling. not excluded. And, as the apoftle calls thefe feveral modes of purification, haptijms ; we there- fore argue, from this various ufe of the term, that an application of the facramental water by pouring or fprinkling. Is, according to the language of infpiration itfelf, a valid baptifm. Againft this Mr. M. does not even attempt to urge a fingl^ argument : he only fays, that " he does not re~ *' member that the Mofaie fprinklings are called ** wajhings.'* But, I 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 hlm^ if he remembers, that the mode of purification enjoined to one under a legal pollution, w as to be performed by a ^'fprinkling the water of fepa- *'^ ration" upon him; and that the perfon thus Jprinkled was faid to be made clian. is not that therefore a mode of zvajliing, which is manifeftly a mode of cleanftng f I alk him too if he remem^ hers, that upon the fprinkling of blood on the ■leper ftven times- (a circumftance Implying perfect purification) he was " pronounced cleanT' And,, AG ( 203 ) as this was antecedent to the wafhing his body with water and therefore apparently the leading part in the ceremony j whether it was not con- lequently the principal circumftance in his legal wafnlng? I alk him farther, in additional confir- mation of the propriety of calling fprinkling a Icriptural mode of ivajliing, if he remembers, that what St. yohn ftyles being '* tvajlied and cleanfed* by the blood of Christ, St. Paul terms *' having *' the heart fprinkkdf* If therefore the Holy Ghoft, in his word, calls that in one place wajli- ing or cleanjing, which in another, he ^y Its fprin- kling; I alk, whether he remembers that evangeli- cal fprmklings are called wajhings and vice verfa f and whether thefe convertible terms in the New I'eftament do not bear a manifeft reference tq the accommodation of them under the Old ? If a perfon, therefore, who is [prinkled, with the blood of Christ, is alfo faid In fcripture to be wajlied in it ; why may not one who is fprinkkd In bap- lifm, as emblematical of his fplritual purification, be alfo faid to be wojhed with the facramental water, and therefore to be partaker of a valid baptijm f \i jprinkling is called waJJiing in the thing ftgnifit'd; why not in ihejign ? A natural inference this, founded on fcripture-analogy ; and againfl 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- loning on this head, that, he very honeftly refers us to his oracle Dr. 5". whofe defence, of the crL- C c 2 ticifm ( 204 ) ticifm on Heb. ix. lo, is therefore to be efteemed a fupplj for Mr. iU/.'s lack of fervice. Indeed, when I reilecft on our author's notorious deficiency in the critical department, and his inanifell: difqua- Jification for controverfy altogether j I am fur- prifed he did not relign up the principal manage- ment of the prefent difpute to fome-body elfe j and thus fight hy proxy, rather than expofe his weaknefs in propria perfond. According therefore to his reference, 1 turn from the faint echo to the oracle. Dr. 5". fets out with faying, p. 54. " We irjift " that the proper meaning of the word ^^oiTfjio-ixn " is bathings or dippings.'* And fo, after begging the queftion in this infijiing flyle, he proceeds to prove, that " the various plungings of priefts, *' leviles and people, for defilement, &c. are the '* different ypfaVj of the genus dippings." Thus, according to the Dodor, cl'ppings are the different fpecies of the genus dippings. And whether this is not a fpecies of that kind of nonfenfe and gla- ring embarralTment, which attends his reafoning on this head, I leave the reader to judge. Small as my acquaintance is with the dodrine of genus and fpe-cies, yet I know there is between the feve- ral fpecies contained in the genus, what logicians call differeiitia. Thus a man and a brute are dif- ferent fpecies 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? unlels the Do6^or will contend that a variation in terms makes it. Indee^ ( 205 ) Indeed he feemed aware that to affirm, dippings ^re fpecles oi dippings, would incur manifeft ab- surdity, and therefore he artfully varied his phrafcology. But fuch little artifices as thefe are ealily feen through, and help to detect the fallacy and evalion which frequently lurk under them. But the Doctor makes his difference be- tween the fpecies and genus, to conlill: in the variety of the perfons to be plunged. He fays, the priejis were dipped, the levites dipped, and the people dipped. So that it is all dipping ftlll with- out any difference. He quotes Spencer and Grotius, as faying there was " one wafliing of the priefts, ** another of the Levites, and another of the peo- ** pie." And what then? Who denies that ? But does the Dodor coniider that the difference im- plied in ^ioi'po^oig refpe61:s not the perfons, but ^oiifjio-^.oig the modes or fpecies of ivajhing. Had the Greek word been TroKXoig divers in number, the Do6lor might have ei^ablillied his favorite interpretation. But the word the apoflle u{cs, lignifies a dlverfity in kind. 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 Kom. xii. 6. Mention is made there of differing gifts "^loipo^oc xa^iTixocJoi. And thofe gifts are fpecified ; fuch as prophecy, exhor- tation, ruling, &c. Upon this the Do61or argues thus, " W^e might with good reafon argue ana- *' logically from this other paffage in Romans, f* and {-dy, that as prophecy, ruling, &c. are the " different ( 206 ) ** different fpecies of the genus gifts ; fo the va- " rious plunglngs are, &c." But, according to our author's mode of reafonlng, the analogy is deftroyed, For when he fays, p. 55, that the Greek word refers " to the various forts of per- *' fom cleanfed ;" how can an analogy fubfif^ be- tv/een the cleanling of diiferent perfons and the difpenfing of diiferent ^///j I' when the genus and fpecies are manifeftly confounded, and the latter does not by a fimilar analogy arife out of the former ? If according to the Do61or, ^.apcooi iooifTfJia-i^oi fignify cleanfing of dirierent perfons ; then in order to preferve a juft analogy, ^^-ci^pcpcc •yj>:.Pi 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 chriftian paffover. Now, if, becaufe we ftyle baptifni our chri/iian circumcijion, and under that term imply a refemblance between the old teftament rite and i\.% 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; f other- wife that the refemblance is deftroyed : then, ac- cording to the fame analogical reafoning, we cannot properly receive the Lord's flipper, un- lefs with our loins literally girded, a ftaff in our hand, &c. For if the one ordinance be afucceda- neum to the other, and a refemblance cannot be kept up, without an obfervance of every circum- ftantial ; 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 mnfenfe, all the facraments are equally invalidated. Again. The Anabaptifts argue analogically from the wajliings under the law to the propriety of immerjion in baptifni. But according to our author's mode of ftating analogies, if he would keep up a ftri61: refemblance, between the one anJ the other, which the failure in a fingle cir- cumftance would deftroy ; then his candidates ought to have water of purifying fpr inkle d on them, t If the opinion of a fenfible and pious writer can have any weight with the author of a certain immodefl note, I beg leave to prefent him with the following. " It is fufficient, that the head he fpr'inkJed, or have " water poured on it, or, as being the principal part, if it be dipped, " St(ffidt quod caput afpergatur, vel fuper caput aqua effundatur, vel in aquam " mergaiur, t,v:q:uvn pars prindpaUor. Lynwood. Cunftitu, L. iii. De *' Captiiino." D d 2 to ( 212 > to vvalTi their Jle/Jj, to /have all their flejh, to waJJi ihtir ckathes, &c. For thefe were concoaiitant circumftances infeparably connc^ed with the legal wajhings. But that the dippers will not chufe to extend their analogical reasoning thus far (which however they ought to do according to our ana- logic) I fancy there is little fear. But that I may as foon as poffible difmifs a fubjecfi*, which leads to fuch endlefs trifling, 1 would obferve, that if analogies cannot fublift, unleis there be a precife refemblance in every punctilio, and a literal correfpondence in every circiimftantial (which is the do6^rine of the note- inakerj) 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 ecjually 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 refemblance ; con- fequently, the typical analogy mull be deftroyed. And fo, if a perfon were to draw inferences re- fpciling the types, as Mr. M. has argued, or ra- ther blundered about baptifmal fprinkling, he might argue, that the iirfl: /^dam was not a type of the fecond, becaufe, though there was a llriking correfpondence between them in fome 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 flyle, p. 30, It is not un pro- bable ( 213 ) bable that he Is under a fimilar obllgatton ta the fame note-making ^^ friend" for that we have been juft canvaiiing. If fo; what a pity ! he did not favor us with, the name of the gentleman, to whom he acknowledges himfelf {o prodigioufly indebted I Then myfelf and the public might have united in tranfmitting our joint thanks to Mr. Tlf.'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 Wrexhajn 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 refptiftive 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 facred for prodigies ; and let the fabricator himfelf, qu^i mifcuit utile dulci, receive tlie merited palm aa mte-maker general* CHAP. ( 214 ) CHAP. VI. Mr. yi's irreverence and abufe farther expofed. his arguments in favor of immerfion, taken from the fuperjiitious wajliings of the Pharifees and all the Jews, ijivalidated. Beza, Dr. Pocock and Wall, unite infuppofing that to be only a waJJiing of the hands, which the apojile calls a being baptized* The application of the word ^a-Tfji^oj to the bloody baptifm o/" Christ, and to the baptifm in the cloud, &c. not necejjarily iricluding the idea of immerfion. Examples of baptifms infcripture con-- Jidered. The note-maker'^ tranfiation of a pa f- Jage from Witlius, and his indirect charge againji us of blafphemous reafoning, Jiript of the coloring of faljhood, chicanery, and fophijiry. J' the many arguments, by which we de- monftrate the abfurdity of making immer- lioQ ejftntial to the mode of adminiflering baptifm, not a few are taken from the various ufe and extenfive application of the Greek word i^ciTrjic^-j. That this word has not the confined lignincation, which x4.nabapt.ifls affix to it, I intimated in a quo- tation from Leigh's Critica Sacra. But as Mr. M has infmuated that 1 have quoted that author neither '''fairly' nor " honejUy-^' I will prefent the reader with that part of the lexicographer's opinion, which immediately follows the pailage I quoted from him in my Letter, p. 17. — " Christ *' no where requireth dippings but only baptizing: " which ( 215 ) " which word (as Hejychius, Stephanus, Scapula and " Bud^us the great niaftcrs of the Greek tongue, *' make good by 'very many ivfiances and allegations " out of claffic writers) importcth no riicre than " ablution or wajhing. Bccn^ji^oo (fay they in their *' Lexicons and Commentaries) ia^iv ; ^uTfliTutz *' lavatlo, ablutio-y which may be done ivithout " dipping." — It is true, after this there follow the opinions of feveral other authors, one of which Mr. M. produces, as a contraft to mine. If therefore the palTage I quoted, is found in Leigh as well as that which favors Mr. M.'s idea of dipping ; have I not exa6tly an equal caufe to bring the charge of " dijhoneji" and " unfair' quotation againft him ? efpecially as he ma72gks the lexicographer much more than 1 have done. Befides, the extra6^ I gave the reader from Leigh, I called the author's own *' obfervation." And that my quotation contains the lexicographer's own opinion, in preference to thofe which follow it, feems evident j becaufe it is ihcfirji, the longeji, and the moft particular critique of all the relr. What theiefore, but the moft glaring want of can- dor, could induce our author to reprefent me as acting " dilhoneftly" in my quotation from Leigh ? 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 iingle opportunity, whether juft or otherwife, of ahujing us, if a fentiment is dropped that mili- tates with his pre-conceivcd ideas. Take a re- markable ( 2l6 ) markable fpeclmen of his abufive faculty in the following inrtance. Among the argumentative wilticifms, which were levelled at baptifmal afperfion, in our au- thor's late memorable harangue at Shewfjiiry, one was, his appeal to the audience, '' whether " the fprinkling their pots and cups would ckanfe " them ? This wonderful argumentum ad ancillaSy which, to be fure, would appear extremely de- cifive to all the Jtrva?iti that attended j a judicious hearer faw through; and, in order to weaken the force of an obfervation, which tended to re- prefent immerlion 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 fets about attacking it, with full as much feriouf- nefs as Don^ixot encountered the puppets-, and the liTue of that tremendous rencounter between the Ugna mobilia and the romantic hero, is not alto- gether imUke the overflowings of our author's indignation againft a harmlefs limile ; which hap- pens to be nothing more than an exaft 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, Southampton, &c, for illuftrative artillery ( 21? ) artillery (which is all nothing to the purpofeV unlefs it was the cuftom for thofe who bathed in veftments at thofe places, juft to pop under water, and inftantaneoufly to be taken out again ;) he then makes a fuddeh tranfition to the Dunciad. Having ranfackcd that inexhauflible 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 ; intended for my friend or me j 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- fider that I am not alone in its application. For, you know, reader, Solamen miferis socios habutjp doloris. Were I difpofed to obferve the ki^ talionis^ how ealily might I accoft this ranfacker of the dunciad with a retaliating quotation from Mudi- bras ! — As to the charge of dulnefs, I feel quite indifpofed to vindicate myfelf. But though I de- cline the taik of vindication in favor of *' the Vicar 3" that is no reafon why I may not vindi- cate his friend. I afTure thee, then, reader, the double charge of dulnefs and pertnefs no more fuits him, than a panegyric on modejiy and polite- fiefs, would decypher the Anabaptift champion of E e LiverpooL Liverpool. The friend I allude to, is not one whit inferior to Mr. M. in Judicioufnefs ; 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 " pertnefs i" let it be remembered, that it was only pertnefs in private ionverfation. Whereas Mr. M.*s was " pertnefs'* from th£ pilpit', ^'pertnefs" in a. fokmn ordinance-, " pertnefs'* before a numerous congregation ; •* pertnefs" devoid of decency and argument ; and ** pertnefs'* that affeifled the pra<5lice of a tody 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 conduct. And howfoever Mr^M. might ihlnk the charge of dulvefs is applicable to me ; I affure him, 1 am not fo dull but I can fee the very flriking accommodation of the following lines to- his ilyle of writing. " Immodeft words admit of no defence, *' For, want of decency is want oi fenfe." I am extremely forry to divert the reader from the principal fubje(5l in debate, by drawing off liis attention for a moment to the abulive digref- foons of Mr, M, But, where fueh rubbiili lies In pur way, it is fometlmes necelTary to remove it J although the tafk is very unplealing, I muft own. Without digreffing any more for the pre- fent, I will proceed to conlider the applicatms of the word ^cctFii^co in fcripture : and I doubt in the examination of thefe paflages with Mr. M.'s cu- rious ( 2^9 ) rlous firiaures on them, . it will be difficult to determine, whether his criticifms or inveflives 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 immerlion is not implied; confcquently. that idea cannot be always transfered to a fixed mode of baptifm by- di^pping. 1. " The pharifees and all the Jews except they " walli their hands oft, eat not ; and when they " come from market, except they walh (^uTpiia-coflcct *' baptize themfelves) they eat not." Mark vii, Q,y 4. Upon this paffage he obferves, p. 19; ** So ftrid a feCl as the pharifees would have ** made but little of the inconveniency" of /»z- 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 Apoftle fays, that not only the pharifees but likewife " all the Jews" walhed before din- ner. That therefore an immerjion — of the whole body — C'very day before dinner — was pra<5licable for all the Jews as well as for all the pharifees, I fancy a perfon of unbounded credulity will hardly fuppofe ; without admitting the equally incredible hypothecs that this univerfal immer- lion muft have been carried on by uninterrupted miracle. But it is plain that the wajhivg which the Apoftle fays all the Jews pra<5lifed, was no- thing more than that of their hands : for, in the E e 2 verfe ( 220 ) Fcrfe 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 %-'^/v avi'ifjoig iinwaJJien hands-, and their queftion in ver. 5, is founded on the fame circumftance and couched in the very fame words, '* Why walk not thy difciples *" according to the tradition of the elders, but " eat bread with ocviifjoig %s^a-iv unwq/ken hands f" Now if the thing which the pharifees blamed in the difciples was a not waJJiing their hands ; was not thai the very thing which they pra6^ifed themfelves? To blame the difciples for not wafh- ing their hands when their own cuftom was a bathing of the ivhole body, would have been ridi- culoufly inconfiftent. And yet this unavoidable abfurdity attends the criticifms of Anabaptifts on this paflage. However, to put the queftion be-, yond difpute, let us coniider that appolite paf- fage in Luke xi. 38. A pharifee having invited bur Lord to dine with him " marvelled that he '' had not firft wajJied a vr^MToy c-iSuTfJiByi was not ^' firft baptized before dinner.'* Now compare this text with Matth.xv. 2, 20, and with M<:zr^ 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 fhould have wafh- edthdr hands. Yet this was called a being bap- tized. So that from hence it is plain, ^partial wajliing is according to fcripture a baptifm of the per/on. And indeed Mr. M. himfelf feems aware bif the force of this moft evident demonft ration]; and ( 221 ) snd endeavors to evade it by a concefTion, which for his fide of the queftion happens to be rather unfortunate. " Suppofe they did not (dip their ** whole bodies), ftill they dipped that part they " did walli; and all that ive are contending fort is *' that i^uvfliQ^ Signifies to dip." Is this indeed V ALL THAT HE IS CONTENDING FOR?" Then from this day forward, Mr. M, Ihould never more *f contend'' for a total immerfion as ejjentlal to bap- tifm. Becaufe, if our Lord and his difcipies were faid to be baptized, when they only wallied their hands -, and " all that" our author ** contends ** for, is that the Greek word iignifies to dip j" then fuppoling even that they dipt their hands in order to walb them (which 1 will prqve 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. Gale, •* IFhat is true of any one part feparately, " is true of the whole complexly." And fo, here our two Anabaptifts unite in giving up a total immerfion as eiTential to baptifm, and In efta- blilhing a partial waJJiing, 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 walhings of the phari- fees, as we have done, I beg he would confider the following opinion oi'Tilenus. " Baptifm, if we *' refpecft the etymology of the word, Iignifies dip- ** ping, and likewije sprinkling, in which fenfe ** it is ufed, Mar. vii. 4; and confequently waih- f.' ing." And again. *' Baptifm in general fig- " nifies. ( 222 ) *' riifies, immerfion, or wajhingy or sprinkling."'!' From this appolite note of the etymologift J'ilenus, which I beg our author to ruminate upon, I pafs to his Next argument, fuch as it is. He contends that the manner the pharifees vvallied their hands was by imnicnion. And fuppoling we grant that, it is not very material ; Unce it would not invali- .date the argumtnt againft the neceffity of a total jramerlxon in baptifm. However there is intima- tion in fcripture ihat the Jews waflied their hands hy pouring water on them : for it is written, that ** Eliyha poured water on the hands of Elijah.'* J) r. Gale indeed, and from him Dr. Stennett, fay, it ftiould be, *' FOR the hands of Elijah;" contrary to the Latin super and the feptuagint Greek, which renders it *v7r;p %si^ocg. Belides, Dr. Wally in p. 109, and 11 1, of his Defence, quotes the learned Dr. Pocock, as proving from Maimonides and other Rabbis, that the ordinary mode of wathing hands before meals, was by water run-r ning or poured out of a velTel or fmall ciftern, called by Euftathius %£p;^oj/, and by the Evangelift v-iTfJTjp', from which the water ran out by acock for that purpofe; of which there feems to be an intimation in that exprelTion ^v}u)^ sttl irolag ^jjh, f^uke vii. 44. f Baft'ifmu!, fi ETTMON voch fpeB'emus, immcrrionem figmjicat, atque ptiam ASPEusioNEM, quo fenfu ufurpatur Mar. vii. 4, & a confequenti ablu- \ion.zrB..—^BapUf7niis in genere, vel merfionem Jignificat, vel ablutionem aut pERFUsioNSM. TU. Dc Bapt. Pifp. I. Thef. ii. P. 883, & Theolog. Syfl. In ( 223 ) In order to juft'^y his tranllating the Greek word in Mark vii. 4, bathe. Dr. 6\ quotes Beza as favoring his interpretation. But the very fame £eza, howfoever on that paflage he drop acriticifm that countenances the Dodor's fentiment, gives us an interpretation of the fame word ^cc-rfjillo, which diredly militates with the Do6lor's idea. This is evident from the following words of Dr. JValL " Dr. Pocock both fays himfelf, and quotes *' Beza SAYING the same, that '^(ZTfji^sbon here *' in St. Luke, means the fame as XaiBoci and " Xs^vi7f]:iVy to wajk, or to wajli the hands. And " that Jince 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(3oi'7fjiByi which comprehends both the " one and the other. ^' -f For, fays the Dr. (Pocock) ** that it is not ufed only for that (dipping) I think " is plain from that which we read in Luke xi. 38. " The pharifee marvelled that a vr^oojov afSoiTfliBTj,'* Not. Mifcell. C. ix. P. 397. So that from hence it follows, (i) that Be%a*s opinion refpe^^ing Mark vii, 4, does not altoge- ther fuit the Dodor^s purpofe ; lince it does not conclude abfolutely againft us ; (2) that Beza*s interpretation on one paflage, manifeftly favors the very arguments we urge refpe(51ing the mode of the Jewiih walkings from another ; (3) that Dr. Pocock and Be%a were unanimous in calling that a baptifm, which was only a wafhing of the hands -^ and (4.) that QoiTfji^M, according to thefe + Jfa// agalnft Cak, P. III. tWO^ ( 2H ) two great critics, fignifies the fame ai Khm ancJ" yj^viTTTCA:. A proof this, by the bye, they did not think as Dr. S. does, that Asfio always implies th-e idea of wafliing the whole body. II. The fecond application of the word refpe6^s their mann-er of walhing their cups, pots, brazen 'veJfeU and yJKnwv beds or tables. On this branch of the Jewifh wafhings Mr. M. afks, " 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 contradicts" the fuppolition of their having been overwhelmed; for our Lord' charges the pharifees with making clean to '5^a4-v 'Trojvj^iii only the outjide of the cup. Matth. i. 23, 25. How therefore only the outlide cou-ld 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 wafliing •* 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 him. — k it probable that their brazen veffels were ever immerfed? when it is conlidered that they were often fo large as to contain a fort of refervo.ir for the purpofe of wafliing other furniture ? W^llo would think of plunging a furnace into water in order to wafli it? — Were their beds wallicd by immerflon ? O but Mr. M, thinks the word may ( 225 ) may as properly lignify tables. I think not. 'f' KA/v'// is derived from tcKivoo reclino, and is the name of thofe couches on which they reclined thcmfelves at dinner. Belides it is tranllated bed In Matth. ix. 2. But fuppofing it to Hgnify a table, 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 Ihould be their in- variable mode of wafhing 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. S.*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 fuppojit ion (for proof is no component part of our author's criticifms) that the articles juft mentioned were wafhed by immerlion ; 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 their beds, were called in Latin clinici, a word derived from y.hn^y a bed. But when our author tranflates the Greek word a table; then, according to him and his oracle, the clinici were perfens baptized on tables. — See what nonfenfe refults from an unwilling- nefs to yield up the moft plain interpretation, when it dailies with the intcrefts of bigotry I ^ i " they ( 226 ) ** they put their beds and couches Into water, ** efpecially as the law of Mofes enjoined, that " every thing deemed unclean, whether it was a " veilel of wood, ox raiineiit, ox Jkin, ox Jack, it '• muft* be put into water." This illuttration, 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 injunction to do with the fuperftitious 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 afide the com- *' mandment of God, ye hold the tradition of *' men ; as the baptifms of pots, &c." Markviu 7, 8. (2) What God enjoined in Lev, xi. 31, refpedted 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 veifels were to have been ufed at any meal. (3) If the Jews made any reference in this practice to the command in Leviticus, they flill deftroyed it by their traditions and fuperftitlons; otherwife our Lord would not have blamed them. And as their wafhing the outfide of the cup, &cc. was one of the corruptions he blamed ; does not that cir- cumftance imply that they did not plunge them? (4) Belides, we are informed Num. xxxi. 23 -, that * ^' Every thing deemed unclean — it! inufl!" — Attic tafle ! every ( 227 ) every veflel that would abide the fire, of brafs^ 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 vefTels, pots and cups, were not commanded to be put into the water at all. Here. therefore Mr. il« sfooiiflicroiTo with which' ** Christ himfelf was baptized."* — The vene- rable Bede confirms the idea of afperfion. For, commenting on the very words of Christ in Luke xii. 50, he makes him fay, ** 1 have" fays. • Greg. Ndz. Oiat. xxxix. Tom. i. P. 634. he. ( 230 ) he (a baptifm to be baptized with, /. e.) " to be; *' SPRINKLED with the bedewing or dying of *' my own blood/'f — Scultetus in his fermon on If. Ixiii, which he intitles Iriumphus Del habi- tu cruentato ex acie rcdeuntis; paraphraling on ver. i fays, " To come from Edom is to walk, in a red '* veftment ; and with dyed garments from Bozrak *' is to have garments sprinkled with new wine. " — I 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- " mies." X IV. The next application of the word, where the idea of baptifmai immerlion is not nccelTarily implied, occurs in i. Cor. x. 2. The account given us of the paffage of the children of Ifrael thro' the Red fea, feems naturally to favor the idea of afperlion. But againft this Mr. M. fays, that ** the Ifraehtes went through the cavity of the " fea on dry land" and therefore they could not have been fprinkkd with fome detached pai*- ticles of the fea. What wonderful logic ! As if a perfon may not be fprinkled with rain and walk on dry land at the fame time. O but " they " were in the cloud and in the fea; and this ** furely favors Immerf^onJ" p. 22. Obferve reader, to what fallacy and abfurdity the Anabaptift is *)■ Sanguinis inqu'it propvii thiUione bdro perfundi. Bed. in Luc. xii. 50. :f Venire ab Edom eji rtileo veji'itu inccckre ; & venire tinAis vcflibus de Eozra, efi habere vejlbneiita fmijio resteksa. Torcu'ar calcavi, i.e. uvas' Vi torcuhri. At que hlnc vejhs hoftium fangtiinc RESi'tRSAS gero. Scultet. ill JLoc. driven I ( 231 ) driven! He fays the Ifraelltes went on dry land: he will not allow that they were wet with the dew from the fea or the cloud : and yet he fays they v/ere immerfed in both. But the apofllc fays they were baptized upon this occafion. Accord- ing therefore to our author, here was a baptifm without any application of water. An erroneous criticifm this, that would juftify the moft unjuf- tifiable mode of baptizing. For, if the courfc of a ftream 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 lituation, although he Ihould be "on dry land," yet with a cloud over his head, and the waters around him, he might be faid to be in both, and to be baptized in both, without the application of a lingle drop of water. And yet ftupidly abfurd and invalid as fuch a mode of baptifm would be ; it is neverthelefs authenticated by Mr. Af.'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 circumjiance," 'X And here I cannot help applying to the pre- fent criticifm a v/onderful argument of our au- thor's, which occurs p. 28. In order to prove f AmiCATio A.i^uii: tieccjjaria eft ic eiTcntia. lapiifnn : aft appUcatio hoc vel illo MODo circumftantxam ftnat. Hor. Heb. hi Matth. iii. 6. (according ( 232 ) (iccorJing to his uncommon method of demon- ftration', thac the multitude mentioned in Matth. iii. ;5, were all immerfed in the water of yorc^t^w j he ifaj's, " 1 have no doubt of it, or elfe they had no ■*' buiinefs in Jordan." Bat, the force of this huge reafoning founded on the word in., is intirely enervated by what he fays above. For, the If- •raehtes were in the cloud and in the fea and not wet with the water of either ; confequently the multitude that attended John'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 a!!. But, if, as was certainly the cafe, the Ifraelites were baptized in the Red fea by the afperfion of water; why might not 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 flood " on dry landf' To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water, becaufe the word in occurs in the nar- rative, would in many inftances be equally falfe as abfurJ. For^inftancej our Lord commands the young man born blind to " wafh in the pool *' of Siloam." Now to accommodate Mr. M.'s logic to this inflance, would be to infer that he was plunged all over; " or elfe he had no bufinefs ** in' Siloam. But, that the blind man was not immerfed, and yet had very important *' buflnefs" at the pool, is evident ^ for, the curing his blind- nefs depended on his wafhing there. But that his whole body was not immerfed in it is plain ; be-- caufc ( 233 ) caufe only his eyii were atfe6^ed, and only this patt was to have been walhed; \\\ doing which, there was no immerfion at all: belides, the Greek word, ufed to defcribe the walhing, is in John ix. 7, \n-\j(xi from vnv\oo^ which is always applied to a partial walhing only. What becomes then of the mighty arguments our author founds on the force of th^ word in ? ^ But, to prove, that others thought as w^-ll as myfelf, that there was fome analogy between the flate of the Ifraelites v^ hen J j^rinkicd by the cloud and fea, and that of a perfon baptized by af- perjion, I need only quote /Valgus. " vVhich rite, " (that is, sprinkling) th^ b.iptifm in the cloud " and fea alfo favors j of which Paul treats in '' 1 Cor. X." * V. We urge that no argument decifive In fa- vor of total immerlion as the ej/e?ice of baptifm, can be drawn from the txamples recorded in fcrip- ture; but, on the contrary, if we are permitted to draw natural inferences from rational premilies, we conclude that the baptifms mentioned there, f Even Dr. S, overthrows our author's wonderful logic, founded on the ufe of the monofyilable in, by the followinjj conctiEon. " What " Baptift ever said or thought that perlons caniio: go into Crc " water, without being PLUNoto in it ? or that the exprclfioii of " K^'"'S down into water neceilarily includes dipping in it ?" liemnks, p oi. T hope it will be allowed, that a perlon who " goes into water" may confequently be faid to be z« it. And, if accoixlijig to Dr. S. the application of the former exprelilon does not " necefiarily ini lu le " dipping;'''' neither does tliat of the latter. The diipute tlius far, is, therefore, between Mr. M. and his oracle. * Cut ritui (fc. aspersioni) qiwque favet bapiifnws in ntthe ir mnri ; de ^uo Paulus, I Cor. x. ogit. Walseus, Synops. Pur. 'Uicolog. Dilp. xliv. G g Were ( 234 ) were performed by fprinkling or pouring of wa- ter. Conlider we then, i The multitudes bap- tized by 'john the Baptift, Matth, iii. 5, and by the apoftles, A^s ii. 41. — That " Jcrufalem and all *' Judea, and all the region round about Jordan" in the one inftance ; and three thoufand perfons in the other; could not have been baptized by a total immerfion, is implicitly evident; (i) be- caufe, in the former cafe, the Baptift 's time and Jirength would have been inadequate to the work ; and the. fame circumftances of impradicability operate ftrongly in the latter. Dr. 5. 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 the feventy alfo; though this genllem.an, who lays fo great a flrefs on the letter of fcripture, as neceffary to authenticate pra6iices on other occalions, here departs from his own favorite maxim ; for, as the context does not intimate, that the feventy aflifted upon this occafion, have we not as good a right to urge the Jilence of fcripture againft the Doctor here, as he does the very Hime circumftance againft us in other inftances, though with not equal plaufibility of argument? He urges indeed, *' that the text does not Jay they \vere baptized " in one day only." p. 116. That is, the words one and only are not mentioned m the text ; and therefore the text docs not ** fay' it. What trifling ! But does it not [ay^ that the very three thoufand who had " received the word gladly, •' v/ere baptized, and 75? ''5/^--ff , in that day were " added ( 235 ) ** aJded to the church?" J^s ii. 41. Were not the perfons added to tJie church, the fame, that in the former part of the text are faid to have received the word and fo have been baptized? 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 fuppofing what is improbable and impradicable) that the multitude awakened under Peter s fermon were all immerged? And even if the difficulty upon this occalion was alleviated by the number of ad- miniftrators; yet how will the fame fuppoiition apply to the Baptifi ? Surely the ingenious Dr. 5". cannot, without a prodigious knack at invention, attempt to demonftrate, that John had the alTift- 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 fubjeds feems to have been much greater, than that, which demanded the help of the twelve apoftles and feventy^ difciples; if we . conlider that he baptized " all Judea and all . ** Jerufalem and all the 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, one adminiftrator could 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 ( 2^6 ) our author's kidney ; but which will ever, to candor and common fenfe, appear either as ab- folutc miracle or romance. But fuppofe yohn to have baptized by pouring or fprinkling of water; then the incredible and abfurd vanifh to- gether. (2) We think, that the confideration of viodtfiy would lay a confiderabie bar againft im- merging fuch vart multitudes. For, as it would refled 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- probable, that either Jofin^ profelytes, or thofe a.vakened under Peter's fermon, confifting prin- cipally of the poor, could be provided with change of raiment; and i: they were, that even in that cafe, the difpenfers of the ordinance would pro- pofe an univerfal immerlion, to a promifcuous multitude of men and women; when their un- di '.JJing and changing their zvtt garments^ muft have Been attended with a group of circumftances equally inconvenient and indelicate. For, how- foever a few perfons in a private baptijlery-, 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 ?i public place; before a number of fpeSfators ; at a diftance from their refpec^ive habitations; and either unprovided with or unable to procure, change of laiment; — I fay, a baptifm, attended with fo many infuperable difficulties, ^ould never have been adminiftered by a total immerlion j efpecially when it is confidered, that an ( 237 ) an almofl: unavoidable infringement of the laws of decency, niuit have been the c nlcqaence. And indeed I cannot help faying- that, although the mode of baptizing, praitifed by modern Anabap- tifts, is not liable to an equal degree of immodefty and inconvenience ; yet that j'ome degree of both is hardly avoidable. — it is the dtlign of the great Head of the church, that every thing in it Ihould be conducfe I .-ucr/^p-vc r with decency. And 1 can never fuppofe, that he would have en- joined immerlion, as ejj'ential to baptifm, when fuch an inlHtutton would be fubjed:, 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- ceiTary to the due adminitlration of the ordinance, that the candidates ihould enter the baptiftery quite naked j in order to preferve a drained re- feniblance to our jpi ritual nakednefs, as well as to keep up a fuppofed reprefcntation of their ** putting off the old man ;" or as VoJJius fays, ^aji non minus nudi bapt izarentur quam Adam fuerit in paradifo. Several lliamcful incidents re- fulting from this molf indecent mode, brought it into gradual difrepute among the Adamites themfclves (for fo fome of thefe naked dippers were called), and at laif into univerfal difufe. Upon this mode the Anabaptifls have conlidera- bly improved, by rejecting this fpecies of inde- cency, altogether, and by requiring all their can- didates to be dipped in garnuiits. But, although they are to be commended, for thus far obferving the ( 28^ ) ^ the laws of decency ; yet I cannot think, that Dr. S.'s argument, in favor of the i\n£i modefty of his mode, taken from the promifcuous bathings at our modern v/atenng-p;accs, is of any force; unlefs he could prove, that fuch a modern cuftom were ftridly defenfibk, or that perfons there dipped 07ie another. And even if men and women may bathe promifcuoufiy, and modeftly too, perhaps, in a modern bath ; yet, furely, this will not admit a parallel with the pra61;ice of the Anabaptilis ; where worntn^ appareled in a fingle garment, in a public place, and before feveral fps^ators, are taken by a ;7Zi:3;«, and plunged head-over-ears ;ef- pecially, when it is a notorious fad, that fome modeft adminiftrators thus immerge zvomtn far advanced in their pregnancy : and, this latter cir- cumftance, from which Mr. M.'s condud is not exempt, 1 dare pronounce njery indecent, as weli as extremely dangerous ; -j- and nothing but the mofl: unconquerable refolution to fupport the caufe f Tn my Letter to Mr. M. p. 23, 24 ; I advanced an argument againft the necefDity of baptifmal vmmerfion, founded on the manifeft danger thiit would attend fuch a mode; and I iuftanced in the cafe of treunant WOMEN ; fuppofing at the fame time the danger to be ftill farther en- hanced, if perfons in a ftate of pregnancy lliould be immcrfed in the DEPTH OF WINTER. Thls bciug argiimentmn ad homhiem ; and the fa(Sh T condemned, having been a literal tranfcript of Mr. M.'s condudl, when in Shrexvjl'ury ,• either he himfelf, or probably, his notc-makiEg friend FOR him, attempts to invalidate my argument in a note, p. 28, by aflertlng " that cold hatking is recommended by the faculty to pregnant " women; and that fprinkling or pouring of water would be dange-i " rous as well as going into the water." In oppofition to this evafive fluff, I anfwer, (i) That the dipper's medical doBrbie feems to be found- ed more upon empiricism, than upon the principles oi phyfic ; and that it exactly comports with the fyflcm of " the faculty" of the Quacks; which is fo famous for accelerating the departure of people out ( 2^?9 ) caufe of bigotry, and to keep up the Jchifm at all events, could ever fuggeft this branch of a mode, to invalidate which, the laws of decency, humanity, Tiiid common fenfe, powerfully concur. Be- lides, it is not a little extraordinary, that they ihould, in every injiance, invariably pratSlice a total immerlion j when they are conftrainejd, 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 ink; and which he out of the world : and llnce Mr, AI. Co cordially embraces their prin- ciples, fliould not that learned body prefent him with a diploma, as a bright graduate in the fyftem of jE/culafius? and advance him to the ftill higher honor of being professor of quackery ? (2) Suppofmg, that in fome inftances, bathing migiit be recommended to pregnant women ; yet, would any perfon in his fenfes, recommend it as viedicinal in the rigorous month of December? and not long^ before their decumliturc ? Not to urge how inuelicate an appearance a pregnant woman muft make, before a number oi fpeiftators, at a public bath- I aflt, whether the man, who could be the adminijlrator upon fuch an occafion, mufl: not be loft to every tender fenfation, and referable in his fpirit, the unfeeling apathy of a Stole, rather than the teadernefs and delicacy of a Ckrijiian ? If there l>e an objcA upon earth, calculated to excite the niceft fenlations of tendernefs and iympathy, it is cer- tainly that of a woman, far advanced in her pregnancy. But what are all thefe tender fenfations, and the circumftances that might naturally fuggeft them,, to Anabaptijh ? The fchifm must be kept up, at the hazard of health and life. And, though instant death might be the confequence of an immerfion of pregnant women in the depth of winter ; yet what it 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) fay?, that " fprinkling of water would"' (in cafes of fickaefs) •' be dangerous as well as going into water;" I need make not a fingle obfervation to prove, that his wild politioa is equally fupported by inhumanity and faljliood. For, as one juftly ob- ferves, *' I'here is a time, when a ferious writer would not trouble " him/elf to confute or fet a wrangler right. And 'tis fuch a one as " this, where the pervcrfity is fo great, as to become an infult upon, " common fenfe." corroborates ( 240 ) corroborates by his mt-morable maxim '* What is *' true oi any one part fcparately, is true of the *' zt.'Ao7c complexly :". and when Mr. M. himfelf *' contends for no more, than that ^cxafji^oo lignlfies " to dip;" without fuppoling, it always impHes a total immerlion. Conlidcrmg, therefore, the natu- ral tendency of thefe conceiiions, to weaken the force of the Anabaptifts' own prat^tice; how lliall we accent for their notorious deviation from their own un-txtorted acknowledgments ? Dr. JVall fuggefts a very probable realbn, for their incon^ littency, on this head. If, iays he, they were to give up dipping all over, in any one inftance, *' then x\\t fchifm would be at an end; Rnd that, *' you know, would be a dreadful thing." 1 hat Others fuppofed baptifmal afperlion waS more conlilient with modtjty, than immerlion, is evident, from the following telHmony of Vossius* ** BeliJes thofe other four reafj.is, 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 adults^X — And with him concurs Cham j ER. " The ufe of aspersion " is certainly more proper or convenient, both " in regard to the incleuicncy of the weather, " and in relpecl: of modesty. "t" And, the fame lait-mentioned author fuppofes it improbable, that \ Prater vera quatuor ijias quai Thomas attuUt caiifas, etiam quhitam al'iaul (i(Ui!i:t, honeftatem ; fropter quani drcentius eft adullos ASPERGERe vel PEKFUNUERE. Volf. Dc Bapt. Difp. i. P. 360. f Certe commodtor aspersioms nfta., ir propter tcv.pcftaium inconimoda ir frcptcr ruuoREM. Cham. Contract, 1,. v. ** the ( 241 ) ** the three thoiifand could be baptized, by a " few apoftles, In one day, if they were all im- *' merfed."* — So does Bonaventure. ** It is pre- *' fumed, that the apoftles baptized by sprin- " KLiNG : and that cuftom is ftill obferved in ** many churches. Ahd well obferved it may be, *' lince therein, the reafon or intent of the facra- " ment, is kept intire."§ And of the fame opinion was Nicholaus de Orbellis, who lived Anni Dom. 1452. " It is not likely, when three thou- *' fand were baptized on the. day of Pentecoft, *' that every perfon had his whole body walhed " in water j 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. Lymvood. " It is very '* probable that the apoftle Feter^ did not bap- " tize by immerlion, but by aspersion.":!: — ■ And that John baptized by pouring or fprinkling of water on the fubje6t, and not by immerlion^, was the opinion of Paulinus, Bilhop of Nolay a co- temporary with St. Auguftin; as appears from the * Videtur 3000 Uno die a paucis ApofioUi mn potinjc baptizari fi Jinguli merji fnijcnt. Cham. Hid. § Prxfnr)iUiir quod Apojloii hapthuverunt ASPERGENDCf; & 7)wsille ferva- tur adhuc in phrihus ecclefiis : fervari autem potcjl propter hoc, quod ihi eft integra ratio Jacramenti. Bonavent. L. iv. Dift^ 3. f Non cnim eft verifimile quod in die Pentecoftes quarJo haptizati fintt tria mUiia, quod quilibet lavaretur quantwn ad totum corpus ftium in aquci : fed prx- cife quantum ad faciem aspergendo, vel quantum ad caput perfundcndo. Nieol. Dc Orbellis. in 4 Sentent. Difl. 4, 9, I. De Baptifmo. i Vcriftmile eft quod non per modun; iimnerftonis fed aspErsionis baptiz.t- Terlt Apoftolus Petrus. Lynwood. Condit. L. ii;. De Baptiftno. H h tw<3 ( 242 ) two following lines. Speaking of the Baptifl, h< fays, " D'llu'it INFUSIS credentum crim'ina LYMPHIS, " Abjolvilque metm hominum^ ptsnafque remit tit.' f Thus have I expatiated the more largely on the probable mode, by which yohn and Peter baptized ; becaufe our pofitive Anabaptift, is fo peremptory in the oppofite fuppolition; and yet has not urged a fmgle argument to fupport it. AH he fays, in p. 28, 29, is low fneer, -^ con- temptible irony, and dov/n-right abufe. As to thofe commentators, \\ho cannot digeft impro^ babilities fo eafily as our author, and therefore conclude^ the baptifms of John and Peter could not have been performed by immerlion ; of all fuch he fays, " 1 think" (but thinking and proving f " He walhes away the fins of beliex'crs by -water poured on " them, &c." Paul'vi. Ep. Nolan ; ap Kigali. Not. in Tcrtul. P. 70. * 1 Avifli, however, when our author is in one of his fneering-rnoodi, that he would take care to fneer grannnatkally. Having, in p. 29, fug- gcfted an ironical hint refpedling the mode ©f Johns baptifm, he con- ckides by faying, " The water would have ETTETTscra fell on them." I fliould 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 fpecimcn of his profound gramma- tical difpuiiitions, or of his good ^'■friend" at Wrexham; who hath lielped him to fo many valuable " hints" in the note-niaking ftyle, which he hath further clarified by his corrcBior.s of the prefs. Now. as our author has fo modeftly declined the office of a " liturgy-mender," as being " a poor mean employment;" I fliould be glad to know, whether that of a fpitax-mendcr be not full as jyuanf efpccially as our profoutid cmcndatnr hath likewife thought proper to tranflate titi'nia'i, " WOULD have felW" And, fince we have been already favored with fome fimilar fpecimens of Mr. iVf.'s genius in mending and Mr. y.'s in rorreBiiig ; are they not moft happily blended together as a mending Zmmviratc? are ( 243 ) arc two things), ** all thofe commentators may ** be called Bible-menders." Whether it be cha- raderillic of genuine modejiy^ for a man of his notorious ignorance, to let himfelf up as a judge of commentators, and to decide upon their ra- tional criticilms, without making one eifort of argumenc to overthrow them \ 1 leave to the judgment of the candid reader. As to his charge againft us, of attempting to mend or piece out (his own phrafe) our Bibles; 1 lliould be glad to know, who are moft likely to fall under this imputation? they who bring reafon 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 contradicted by the natural fuggeftions of common Jenjef VI, The next example, on which our Anabap- tift 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- iion, he is obliged to have recourfe to the fol- lowing fuppofitions, viz. that the jailor *' had a '' refervoir of water in the prifonj" or that he was dipt in an adjacent river. And yet this is the gentleman, who charges us with refting all our opinions refpeding the baptifms mentioned in fcripture, on fuppojitiom, probabilities, &c. But in the prefent inftance, his charge manifeflly recoils on himfelf. For, his fuppofition that there was a little pond of water or well, in the prifon, is not fuppofable ; and his probability, that thfc H h 2 jailor ( 244 ) jailor Was plunged in the river, is improbable; if we confider, that the baptifm was performed at midnight i and that the adminiftrator, whofc body was galled with ftripes, could not, with- out manifeft peril, enter a river or even a do-r JHeftic refervoir of water, at fuch an unfeafon- fible hour of the night. Belides, if immerlion had been the mode, the inconveniencies and dan- ger, might have been in fome meafure obviated, by poftponing it to the enfuing morning. Yet wc are told, that '"' the jailor and all his were *' ha.^tized Jiraightivay." Ads. xvi. 33. So that, as there is not the leail intimation in the hiftory, that they went out to any river-, conlidering the time of night, the unhealed liate of the Apoftles' ifripes, as well as the improbable circumftance of there being a quantity of water in the prifon, fufficient for an immerlion of the whole body 3 is it not more rational to fuppofe, the ordinance to have been adminiftered by an affufion of water? And with this fuppof^tion correfponds the opinion of Chamier. *' Nor was there at hand within the *^ prifon, as much water as would be neceiTary *' for immerjion." "f But, in a note, p. 32, we are confronted witH a quotation from IVitfius ; which, according to the note-maker's tranjlation, feems, at firft fight, 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 . f Ncc intra carcercw fu'ilfct ad manuvi taiiimn aqtix quantum mcrgendo cbui fpfit. CUam. Contra^a. L. v. C. i. baptifm J < 245 ) baptrfm, IVitJiiis fiys, Sacrii lymphis tin^us chrijii- anifmi myjieriis imtiatusjit. Thcle words, Mr. M; or his good " friend that has fuggciied" the important " hint" m the note, tranllates " Being ** dipped in the facred Jiream, &c." But this tranllation is palpably faUe, in more refpec!:b than one. For (i) it contradids the hiftory, by fup- poling, that the jailor went out of his houle to fome neighboringy^rtfi^T^z of water to be baptized ; v/hich flream, our author fuppofes to be the ri'ver mentioned in A<^s xvi. 13. But, it is plaia from the to pour-, and is in general acknowledged, hy critics flicrcd and profane, to imj-ly fomething different from immergo. Aimitting this, i think it more than probable, that JVitfi'm did not mean to rnfinuate by the terms lymph. s tint^us, that the jailor was baptized either in a Jiream, or by a total immerfion. And the fame arguments which CKpofe our author's blundering tranflation of Witfius, are equally concmfive againft the infer- ences which he and his oracle draw from thc- words Sft^TT/ojand QocT^i(loy in favor of di'pfing. For, iince critics, commentators, lexicographers, and divines, all unite, in rendering thefe two words by the Latin ti'ngo and ldVO;-X. and fince neither the one nor the of her ficcejjlarily implies immerfion, or dipping at a.l, but frequently Jpr'nkUng, pour- ing, &c. confequently, the fignification of the Greek words and of their correfpondent Latin concludes nothing abfolutely in favor of immer- lion, and manifeftly countenances the oppofite' modes of baptifmal afperfion and ettufion. — Thus, I hope it has appeared how little caufe our author had to triumph from the " hint'' his ''friend'* gave him of introducing an appofite quotatioii from IVitJius : and that as Cicero ddcribcs 2l fprin- kling of literature under the terms Uteris tiii^us-, fo by a parallel tranflation, lymphis tindm may very properly fignify a being fprinkkd with wait ter, \ The triticiim of Zanchius confirms this. Verbtim hoc tarn Jignificat TiNGERE, & ftntpMter iAVARE, puam immcr^cre. Zanch. De cultii Dei ejttcrno. C. xvi. VII. I pro- C 24^ ) VII. I procede, now, to coniider a charge^" brought agaiiift us, by the fuggefter of the *' ki?2t'* In the note, p. 30 ; which he thinks, fo tremen- dous, as to hang like a huge milftone about the neck of our reafoning. This heavy charge is no lefs, than that there is an " exa(^ refemblance" he- tween our reafoning on the examples of baptlfm, mentioned in fcripture, and that, by which PFool- Jion, and other deiftical writers, labor to invalidate the hiftory of our Lord's miracles. That is, reader, Delfts blajpheme the hiftory of the Savior's miracles, by their manner of commenting upon ^ them : and Mr. AI. or his note-maker, iays, there is an " exa6l refemblance'' between their mode of reafoning and ours; infomuch that, what he ftig- matizes as " cavir in the Deifts, he accommo- dates to us, as adopting " the fame kind of " wretched cavil:" confequently an indirect charge of blajpkemy lies againft us. But, furely our au- thor, before he reprefented our conducfl, as a blafphemous imitation of the Deifts, lliould have weighed the avvful imputation, in the balance of candor and truth. For, if, upon a fair exami- nation, it fhould appear, that he has moft lliame- fully mifreprefented us ; I fancy he will find it difficult to exculpate himfelf from the charge of a glaring violation of the ninth command- ment. The whole of his plaufible fophiftry is dete6^- ed and refuted, by the follovv'ing conliderations. (i) His comparifon between our reafoning, and Woolflon's, fails, in one obvious inflarK:e. The Deifls ( 249 ) beift's blafphemous arguments, concern a mira° ck; our realbning, relpeds only an ordinary bap- tijm^ in the difpenling of which, there was not one miraculous circumiiancc. If the three thou- fand had been all immerfed by an extraordinary z^; no perfon, who reverences the Bible, would for a moment hefitate, to admit the authenticity. of the fad. But, when a prodigious multitude are faid to have been baptized by John, or by a few Apoftles, without any Intervention oi miracle-, and when the facred hiftory is lilent as to the mode and circumilances of an ordinance adnii- niftered to fo great a number : are we not left to confider on which lide reafon preponderates, and to draw our conclufions accordingly ? In every narrative, where fcripture obferves a total Jilence refpeding circumflantials ; we are to deter- mine where there is the greatefl: d(?gree oi proba- bility : and when one lide of the quefiion is inadmillible, but upon the implication of miracle^ where however nothing miraculous is recorded j we are to rejed that, and to embrace the fide, which appears unem bar railed with difficulties and improbabilities ; and this may be done, conlift- ently with the deepeft fubmiilion to revelation, and the higheft reverence for truth. Apply this in the prefent inftance. — The hiftoxy of the New Teftament records baptifms, adminiftered to vaft multitudes, by one or a few adminiftra.tors ; without relating the fpeclfic inode. Suppofe thefe baptifms to have been \if^xiormcdjniraculoiijly -, the immerjicn of thoufands in a day, is credible. But I i remove ( 250 )' 1-emove that fuppoiition of an extraordif^ary clr- cumftance ; and the fad is embarraffed with nu- merous incredibilities. Whereas, if you fuppofe the modi' 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 fi6lion. (3) The Deift, by his impious fophiftry, would invalidate the hiftory of our Lord's miracles altogether. But furely Mr. M. muft know in Ills cbnfcience, that the fcope of our realbning does not d.^vd: the hiftory itfiif, but a particular cir~ cum/iance, which Anabaptifts annex to it, and which is founded on incredible abfurdity. IFool- flon blafphemoully concludes his chain of fophif- !ry, by faying, " the whole hiftory (of the miracles) " is inonftroufly abfurd." But we adert, that the ivhole hiftory cf the baptifms recorded in fcrip- turc, is founded on truth, and warranted by the jnoft credible facf^s. Our difpute, therefore, with Anabaptifls, does not refnedt the hiftory of bap- tifms; but the more probable 77iode by which they were adminiftered. So that, if Mr. M. is not loft to every generous feeling of candor and mode'fty; muft not a bluih cover his face, and a fcnfation of guilt ftrike his confcicnce, for daring to aifert before the public, " that there is an exaff refem- " blance between our mode of reafomi7g't)li the " baptijins^ and that of Deifts- on the miracles, " recorded in fcripturc? (4) Our ( 251 ) (4) Our author fcems not a little Skilled 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. l"ak.e.the following inflancc. — In or- der to point out, what he injurioully ftyles, the *' exa^ rdftmblance" between our reafoning, and the blafphemy of JVodfionj he introduces us as quaerying, " How could fo many be baptised m " fo ihort a time r" But, reader, if you will only wipe ofl" the varnilh of this gentleman's Ib- phillry, you will eafily deted the glaring fallhood, that ilvulks under this difingenuous coloring. We do not afk " how could io many be baptizedt" but how could fo many be plunged in fo f.iort a time ? That io many were baptized, we have net the fmallefl: doubt : and that they were baptized, by pcurifig or fprinkling of water, we have all the reaion in the world, to believe-, lince the con- trary fuppolition is manifeifly clogged with a va- riety of incredible circumflances. When therefore the note-maker fays, " It will Ihew them (p. 32) *' that by this method of talking, a man may " prove quodiibet ex quolibet; and to! take heed, f *' left by reafoning In. this manner, they do inad- *' vertently put weapons into the hands of in- *' tidelsi" he manifestly drops a double hint that reverberates on himfelf. For, when a man will prove, that three thoufand perfons were all immerjed by a few apojiles hi one day, under a f Will the note-maker be ib kiiij to point out the grammatical coii- Mxioii of thele tAvo fentences ? I i 2 variety ( 252 ) variety of inconvenient and impra(?ticable circum- flances; I aflc, whether an "adept in fuch huge logic, might not, on the fame principle, attempt to prove any thing from any thing? And, I afk, again, who are moft likely " to put v/eapons " into the hands of infidels?" they, who feem tp difcard rcafcn in the inveftigation of truth? or they, whofe refearches are founded on her moft vigorous exertions, and moft rational deciftons? — They, whofe prcmiftes are full of the marvellous^ and whofe concluftons are fraught with abfurdity? Or they, vi^ho in the examination of the implicit or ambiguous parts of a narrative, argue with precifionp and decide on the part of credibility ? • — They, who make fcripture bow to their pre- conceived notions, in dire(51: oppofition to the dictates of reafon and common fenfe ? Or they, whofe arguments are founded on a coalition of fcripture and right reafon? VIII. As to the other baptifms, mentioned in fcripture, viz. thofe of the Apoftle Paul, the Eu- nuch, Cornelius and the other Gentile converts, &c. there is no abfolute proof th^it |Lhey were admi- niftered, in any of thefe inftanccs, by immerlion. There is impficit pl^oof to the contrary ^ if we may be allowed to reafon on thefe paftagcs. The cafe of the Euiiiich, v/e have already confidered. As to that of Paul; if we conlider the previous weak ftate of his health, rendered fo by his faft- ing three days; and the improbability oi Judas' s having a haPtiJicry in his houfe : there is evident intimation that he was not plunged. — And, as to Cornelius ( 253 ) Cornelius and the other Gentile converts; the very words of the narrative manifcftly hnply, that they were baptized by an atfulion of water brought into the houfe for that purpofc. " Can any " man forbid water, that theie lliould not be *' baptized." Jc'fs x. 47. On which paiTage Dr. Doddridge obferves, " It feems mo/l natural to " underftand it, as Dr. IVhitby does, IFho can *' forbid that zvater Jhould be brought ? In which *' view of the claufe one would naturally con- '*' elude, (N. B.) they were baptized by pouring " water on them, rather than by plu?iging " them in it." * PValaus obferves, fpeaking of the validity of baptifmal afperlion, Exempla adfpcrfionis in jcripiu* ris pojjint deprehendi; Examples of sprinkling may be found in fcripture. And that Aurelius Prudentius thought the Bapllil's mode was that of fprinkling or pouring of Vv'ater, is evident from that remarkable line, " Perfundit fiuvla pajius B apt if. a locufiis." f Hovv'cver, as the Anabaptifts lay a prodigi- ous flrefs ou the baptifm of our Savior, fuppo- ling the mode to have been immerjion ; I will confidcr the hiftory of that circumihnce a little more particularly. The Evangellft informs us that " Jesus v/hen he was baptized, went up * See the Family Expclitcr ar.d irhithy's Annotations on AUs x. 47. f Tlie humble Daptift. who on locufls fed. Each profciyte to Jordan's curieiU lad, And t'uvB.';) tlic iiallowcd water on his head. FniJeiit, Enchirid. " ftraight- ( 254 ) *' f^ralghtway out of the water." Matth. ill. 6. In order to invaiiJate the arguaients urged in favor of total immerlioa as the mode, upon this occalion, I would obferve (i) That no abfolutc conclulion can be drawn from the original of the word baptize-, lince we have before proved, that it does not necejjarily lignify to dip. (.2) Kor can the expreffion, oui of the ivattr, decide in favor of immerlion; although we ihould fuppofe that our Lord was in Jordan. According to Dr. S.'s conceffion fp. 77.) " 1 know not who " fays, that his coming out of the water, necef- *' farily infers his being plu?!ged in it." And yet the DocSlor in the very next fentence, manifeilly contradi6^s hirnfelf. For he adds, " if he was *' i?i it, it mufl. have been for the purpofe of his *' being inimerfed in it." And he inlifls too, •' that his coming out of it, proves he was in ** it.*' Now, reader, review this wonderful logic. He acknowledges, that " his coming cut of the " water does not necefTarily infer his being plu?ig~ f' 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 mufl have been for the purpofe of his ^' being iramerfed in it." So that the Dotfor grants, that our Lo'rd'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 u'ai. His reafoning therefore equally concludes, for and againjl us, as well as /sr and agairiji pi im self; gnd is equally and doubly felf- contradictory. (3) ^^'ar ( 255 ) (3) Nor docs the exprellion weiit up cut of the water, prove that he was in it, or that he v/as irtimerfed. For oivjo-// he went up, delcribes his af- ccnt to the higher ground about Jordan; and aTvo fignifics a-ivay from : He might be laid therefore to have gene aivay from Jordan, without nectiTa- rily fuppofmg that he was immeried in it. (4) But admitting that he was /w; does that nect ffarlly infer his having been plunged^ iSio, Dr. *?. hlm- 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 neceiiarily including the idea of an immeriion in it ? No one would be fo abfurd as to fay he flood out of it, only becaufe 3. part of the body was wet. Since, therefore, neither the hiftory of the paf- fage, nor any criticifms upon it, demonftrate that our Lord was baptized by immeriion j have we not good right to infer the mode to have been an elfufion of v/ater ? For my own part, it fe^ms a natural fuppolition, that our Lord, taking off his fandals, walked into Jordan, and that '^,ohn poured water on his head. This circumflance would bear a corrcfpondcnt reference to the pour- ing on Aaron's, 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 \^'hich an effulion of baptifmal water would alio be a lively emblem. So that as the pouring of the lacred oil on Aaron ilenoted his initiation to the prieiiliood; in like manner. ( 2^6 ) manner, an effu Ron of water In baptlfm, lignlfied at once, the pouring out of the Spirit on the Re- deemer, and his folcmn inauguration to the higli offices of prophet, priefl, and king. To authen- ticate this natural fuppoiition, the following quo- tation from St. Bernard, may be deemed fufficient. — " The angels defcend, and all the troops of ** heaven run with reverence to their Creator. ** The creature pours water infiindit aquam on ** the head of his Creator; and a mortal han- '^ dies the head of him who was his God." -f* •J" Defcenduni angeU, & cxhnim agmina iota revtrcv.iia curriint ad Crentorcm. Infundit aquarn cap'tti Crcatorh crca'.ura, & Dei vcrtkcm viortolh dextru contreBat ir coniir.git. D. Bernard. Serra. de. S. Jo. Bisptifla. Tom. ii. Col. 400. CHAP. ( 257 ) CHAP. VII. 1'hoje pajfages in the Old Teftament and Apocrypha^ where the word ^cy.7f]i^aj occurs, conjidered. — Its Signification farther ajcertained from Critics, Lexi- cographers, and Divines, — The force of Dr. S's quotations from Calvin, Beza, Voilius, repelled\ and the difingenuity of them dete^ed. — Some addi* tional teftimonies from antiquity in fa%w of bap- tifmal afperfion. — ithe debate refumed with the *' fevere oppofer." J fciv heads of advice propofed to his ferious conjideration. N order to fupport their practice, the Ana- baptifts are obliged to maintain that the Greek word ^ccTfjii^co always lignifies to dip, as well as its primitive ^octFJoo; and they are under an unavoidable neceflicy of declaring llkewife,, that, where either of thefe words is applied, it includes the idea of a total immerlion, neceffa- rily. But they are necefTitated to prove this to be the cafe, in every inft.ance. For if a lingle 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 pracflice of total immerlion. 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 fubje6l, . 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- *' fych'm, Slephanus, Scapula and Budaus, the great ** mailers of the Greek tongue make good by ** uery many injiances and allegations out of claflic ** writers) importeth no more than ablution or *'' wajhing, Boi'Tfji^oo (fay they In their Lexicons ** and Commentaries) /izio; <^(x.Tij:crjja lavatio, which ** may be done without dipping." I. As it is QciTfjiQ*}, and not i^o^TpjOs:, that is al- ways appropriated to the ordinance of baptifni; our bulinefs at prcfent will be to invelligate the meaning of this derivative, as it is ufed in the Oki Teilament. It occurs about four times in the Septuagint Verlion and the Apocrypha. That in Jf, xxi. 4, is a figurative exprellion ; and there- fore nothing to the purpofe. The account of Naamans walhing himfelf, mentioned in ii. Kings, v. affords no abfolute proof that he was immerfed. Aajo is thrice ufed to exprefs his wafhing, and ^dTrjicu) once; a proof this, that thefe two words are ufed promifcuoufly for each other. And as we have already fecn in more inftances than one, that AiiM, does not neceffarily imply a wafliing of the whole body; confequently no decilive ar- gument can be brought to prove, that €«7r7/(a', in the prefent cafe, lignifics immeriion. Beiides, it dqes not appear that N'aaman v/as leprous all over; iince it is faid, he thought that the prophet would come out " and ftrike his hand over the '^^ place.'* Aer. ii. Suppof.ng therefore, a part only to been alTecied 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 John ix. who is faid to have waihed in Siloan?, although he did no more than waih his eyesf* — —Of the two in the Apocrypha, the one refpe<51s yudiih's walhing herfelf. The paf- fage in jud. xii. 7, runs thus, tcoh i(3oi7f]'l^^o stti ryjg Ti-.r/Viq Td bdiyJog' She baptized or waihed herfelf at, not in, a fpring of water, in the camp. And it appears that the fprings in the camp were guarded with foldiers. So that here is no proof that Ihe waihed her whole body. — The other is in Eceluf. xxiv. 26. *o ^mttIi^oi^sj'^ ktto vckc^h' " He *' that is wafhed" or baptized, *' from" or after touching *' a dead body," &c. This is the paf- fage that frighted Dr. Gale fo prodigioufly ; upon his finding that in Num. xix. i8, perfons under a defilement after touching a dead body, were to be purified by a sprinkling of the zvater of feparation -, which the fon of Syrach calls a being baptized. A parage this, fo clear agalnft the tfientiality of dipping, that I wonder the Doctor's fright did not arrive at fuch a degree, as to in- timidate him from ever maintaining that ^(y.vfjiclo never lignifies any thing but to dip. — Dr. Stennett^ refers us to a paflage in ii. Mac. i. 21, for which' I am much obliged to him ; becaufe it elfedually overthrows all the arguments he has ever urgedj or can urge, for the indifpenfable neceffity of immerlion, drawn from the fignification of the Greek word. The Dodor has paffed over the reference very flightly j but I fhall confider it K k 2 par- ( 26o ) particularly. — The Apocryphal paiTage alluded to refpe61s an intended facrifice to have been perform- ed by fire, which the priefts had hid in a hollow pit; upon fearching which, inftead of fire, they found 'u^oo^ Trocyjj thick water. This water Neemias, it is faid, commanded them to draw, (N. B.) oiTrc- ^Or-^yciyrcic, 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 priefis (N. B.) to sprinkle" BTTipfoiva-i to RHANTizE *' the wood with the ^' water, &c." So that here was a baptifm of the wood, &c. executed by fprinkling. And what is not a little remarkable, even the primi- tive ^ccvfJcAj is ufed fynonymoufly with ^onvoo. And this one inftance, cuts up every argument of Dr. S. even though embelliihed with all the ad" vantageous coloring of his plaufible pen. II. Lexicographers, Critics, and Divines in general, give ^uifji^co the fignification of zvajking. Scapula, Heden'cus, Irommius, Pajor, Leigh, are all unanimous in tranflating it lavo, abluo. Suidas, befides the fpecial fignification of dipping, gives it the general one of wetting, wajhing, clean- Zing, and therefore tranflates it madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, &c. The learned Piscator, after acknowledging that immerfion might have been the mode in the antient church, imme- diately adds, " Yet the word ^aTfJLCjBai fignifies ?* not only to be dipped, but likewife to be *•' fprinkledj wajhed, or ckanjed, quavis alia " RATIQNE, ( 26l ) " RATioNE, after any other manner." ^' ~Z an- CPiius, whole opinion is worth a thoufand others, fays, " This word lignilies to tinge or fprhikie, *' and limply to ivajlz as well as to d/p.^'-f — Peter Martyr, harmonizing with the foregoing au- thors, fays, '* Nor does the Greek word iign'ify *' to be dipped only, but to be tinged or dyed *' after any mode."x — Keckerman is ftlll flronger, even in his criticifm on the primitive. " But ** ^o^tFjoo 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 ihall conclude the lift. " Baptifm, if we refped the etymology of the *' word, lignifies immerfion, and likewife as per- " SION."^ From thefe teftimonies, (o full to the point, I leave the reader to judge, if the matter is to be decided by the authority of the moft eminent * Tamen verhim ^xTrli^Sat noii filum mergi, fid etlam qttuvis alid^ ra- ihne tingi aut lavari, abliiive fignificat. Pifcator. Com. Loc. de. Bapt. Aphor. i. P. 157. •}■ Verhum aittem hoc tam fignificat tingere, ir fimpUciter lavare quam im- mergere. Zanch. L. i. De cultu Dei ext^rno. C xvi. \ NfLjiie verhum gr^cum tanlum ftgnificat mergi : fid qiwqito modo tingi. Pet. Mart, in Rom. x. § BccttIu) aiitem non tantttfn immergcrc, ficd & aspercere fignlficat. Keck. Sy(V. TlieoL L. iii. P. 452. II Baptismus Grxch qtunh efi ht'io ficii ahlut'w, five immerlione five as- PERsiONE fiat. Par. in Heb. ix. 10. ^ Baptismus, y? etymon vocis fpeBemus, immcrrioncm fignifieat, afqtie etiam aspersionem. Tilen. De Bapt. Diip. i. Jhef. ii. P. S83. Critics, ( 262 ) Critics, whether our iide of the queflion has not the advaniage of a conPiderable majority : And, when Dr. 6'. wouid iniiruiate, that the Greek word " o?i!y iij^nifics dipping;" and attempts to ground this undemonflrated alfertion on the fen- tlinr:nis of L(:xicographers and Divines; whether his inlinuation does not favor more of the piau- libility of fmooth language, than the conckifive- nefs of folid argumentation. In order " fatisfac- *' torily to prove his affertion," he ihould have demonfirated that it is fupported by the opinions of all the eminent Critics, or at leart of the ??ia- jority. But he has not demonftrated either the one or the other; and confequently, on this head, has proved nothing. Rather, the quota- tions, wherewith 1 have confronted hisy prove the very reverfe of all his inlinuations. III. But I am under a promillbry obligation of conlidering the force of fome quotations which the Do6^or has taken from Calvin, He%a, and VoJJius. Which I the rather do, becaufe 1 fhall at once be enabled to produce fome additional teftimonies from thefe great men, to the vaHdity of baptifmal afperlion or etfuiion, and to deted that plaufible fallacy by which Dr. 6". would In- finuate they were ftrenuous advocates for his lide pf the argument, only. — (i) To begin with Calvin, In a note, p. 59, of the Dodlor's Remarks, the reader is prefented with a quotation from the Jnjiitutes of that great Reform.er ; in which he acknowledges that the word baptize lignifies to dip, and that dipping was fometimes pradifed in the . ( 263 ) the antient church; r^fpeding both which par- ticulars, we pcrfcciiy coincide with Calvin. But does this eminent cafuiii: mtaji, that to dip is the ONLY li^iiiticauon of the word? or that baptifni Ihoiild be adnuniftered only by immer- lion ? Qjaite the contrary. For, in the very pallage which the Do6^or has notorioufly, and I ihould imagine, dtfignedly too, curtailed, the be- ginning of the fenUMice, of which his extra6i is the concluiion, diredly overthrows the Do^^or's infinuation. Thefe are Calvin's words. " But ** whether he that is dipt, be immerfcd once *'• orfhrice; or whether he be only sprin- *' kled with water poured on him, it " IS not materi al."'!'— -And that the prefcrlb- ed form of adrainiftration compofed by Calvin, for the church of Geneva^ evidently correfponded with thefe fentiments, is undeniably plain from the following paiiage \n another part of his wri- tings. '^ Then the rainiller pours water on the ** infant, faying, N. I baptize thee, &c."t — I afk then, in the name of candor and common fcnfe, what advantage can Dr. .9. or any of his brethren reap from the tef^imony of Calvin? Or rather indeed, 1 fhould aik, v/hether the opinion of that great Reformer does not direc^fly militate againft the hypothelis, which the Anabaptifts in general, and Dr. 5. in particular, labor to efta- blilh ? And for what purpofe could the Dodor f Cxteram tnergaiurnc totus qui tiiigifur, idque ter an femel, an infufa tantunz aqua afpergatur minimum refcrt. Calv. Indit. Lib. iv. Cap. xv. SecSt. I9. \ Turn in cum aquam ''apfifmi mimfler effundit, inquiens, N. baptize ie, &c. Tra(£t. Tlieolog. Ue Baptilino. P. 45. produce ( :i64 ) produce this mangled quotation? He informs us indeed, p. 58, in words, which are the more ex- traordinary, becaufe they ullier in the extract from Calvin, that " he would add concefiions " from fome learned Psedobaptifts, as to the " TRUE and proper meaning of the word." But furely, either Calvin is contradi6led by himfelf, or mifreprefented by his quoter. The latter I fuppofe to be the true flate of the cafe. For, if Calvin thou0;ht, according: to the Dodor's af- fertion, that to dip was the only " true and ** proper fcnfe of the word" baptize; he never furely would have fa id, that it was ** immate- " rial v/hether the fubje(?l: was fprinkled or dip- *' ped;" nor would he have prefcribed a form of adminiiiration as confonant with that fcntiment^, if he had not efteemcd 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 Dodor, by difmembering the quotation from Calvin, has kept the zvhrAe of his real fentiments out of view ; that by fo doing, he has attempted to put upon the " bright taper *'' of Geneva,'^ a temporary extinguilher, called dijingenuity ', or rather, has raifed a little duft of plaulibility, before the reader's eyes, whereby he might prevent him from feeing his true meaning; and that by claihng the extrad from Calvin with the opinion of Giotius, he intended to reprefent the former as partial in favor of dipping, as the latter ; which Dr. S. himfelf is confcious not to have been the cafe. It is the part of ingenuity, in ( 265 ) In making quotations, to prefent the ivhcie of the paffage to the reader, that he may be able to form a judgment of the original author's real opinion. Becaufc, if it be produced in a ftatc of difmcm- berment, an author may be made to fpeak for and againfi the fame fubje6t. 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 verfd. 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 concejjion, is what Dr. S. has laid before the pub- lic; his genuine fentimcnts, what I have refcued from their ftate of artful concealment. Calvin acknowledges that &a.7f]i(1jo iignifies ^o dip. But does he declare it carries that figniiication only f No ; Drs Si is confcious he aiferts the contrary in the portion of the fentence, which he has omitted. Calvin confefles that baptifiii 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 no^vf' No ; that Reformer's fentiments and practice 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 jufiice quote me-, becaufe, tho' I grant with the Geneva Reformer, that the word iignifies to dip, and that the ordinance might L 1 havs ( 266 ) have been adminiftered by immcrlion in the an- tient chnrch ; yet 1 join ilTue with the fame pcrfon in his own memorable words, which Dr. vS". prudently kept put of fight j Caterum mergaturnt totus qui tingitur, idque ter anfemel, an INF USA aqua aspergatur minimum refert. (2) The Do6lor has produced two quotations from Beza, mentioned, the one, p. 51, and the (>'thcr, p. 59, of his Remarks. The former of thefe pallages refpe6^s the meaning of Si^7^7ci7f]iloo the general lignificatlon of wajliing, and who afiert the validity of adminiftering the or- dinance by pouring or fprinkling of water; I had liudiouily ( 272 ) liudioufly omitted their fentiments concerning thcf propriety of iinrneriion, with a defign to make my readers believe, that they did not fuppofe the Greek word lignified to dip, or that immerlion was a mode of baptizing: by fuch unfair repre- fentation, altliough I ll^ould have given a glaring fpecimen of diiingenuity, I ihould neverthelefs have exa(5lly imitated the condud of Dr. S". and fome of his brethren. As therefore I have not intended in my quotations from authors, to in- iinuate, that they exclude from the word ^oirfji^oo the idea of immerfion, or from baptifin, the correfpondent mode: fo Dr. 6". when he quoted Calvin, Beza, &c. lliould have obferved a limilar difplay of Ingenuous conceilion ; and the rathery becaufe fome readers might fuppofe thefe great men thought dipping ejftntial to baptifm ; which Dr. 5. is ccnfcious not to have been the cafe.- Beiides, though it is fuificient for our fide of the argument, that they acknowledge afperiion to be a valid mode of adminiftration, while they admit dipping too; yet the Do6\or's fentiments and prac- tice require, that the authors he quotes, ihould be adv^ocates for immerfion, and for that only, as the ejfmce of baptilm. But, fince his quotations fail in this circumfirince, they prove nothing ta the Do<^or's purpofc. IV. As Anabaptifis infinuatc, that the adminif- tcring baptifm by afperiion, is not only of fpu- rious, but likcwife of.H:iodern date; I propofe laying before the reader a icw extracts, which may convince Ifnn that this mode, however abufed and ( 273 ) and ridiculed under the fnecring epithet of rhan- ■tifm, ftands recommended by the fandion of orthodoxy and the pradice of antiquicy. Even Bilhop Taylor, whom the Anabaptifts are fo fond of quoting, becaufe of his ftrong conccffions in favor of dipping, yet acknowledges in his Du^or duhitantium, B. iii. Ch. iv. Ru. 15, that, with re- fpecf to the oppofite mode of Jpr inkling, *' the *' Church of England does not want fome good *' EXAMPLES in the purest times to counte- " nance tlie permiffion" of it. I ihall not repeat that remarkable paiTage from Jiiftin 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 correfpondent mode of baptifm, previoufly adopted by the Chriftians of that early period. If the reader will turn back to p. 200, he will fee the paffage in the original, together with the ufe I have made of it, in its proper connexion with a particular branch of the fubjei?!. 1 Ter- tullian, notwithftanding the veneration which Anar^ baptifts profefs for his teftimony, and the prodi- gious ftrefs they lay upon it, drops a hint however, which contains a manifcft reference to the ufe of baptifmal afperfion in his days. Speaking to an impenitent perfon, he fays, " ^/s enim tarn infidel pcenit entire viro asperginem unam cujujlibct aqua commodabit ? To a man, in whofe repentance fq little confidence can be placed, who will give one M m . SPRING ( 274 ) SPRINKLING of any water?"* That 'TertuUian, in thefe remarkable words, refered to water in baptifm, 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 I'ertullians days, that, in my opinion, pothing really forcible can be faid againft it. 2 Ladantius, who lived about the clofe of the third century, is a no lefs authentic witnefs. His ftyling 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 pradlifed in his own time. 3 jithanafius, 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 collufion : and that, while their men- tal refervations concerning the perfons in the Godhead clafhed with their verbal profeffions, the ordinance was to them upon that account totally invalidated y infomuch that " He who was f* sprinkled ^a-yjii^oiMi-joy rhanti%ed by them, was *' through their impiety' (not through any defe6l in the mode) ** rather defiled than waJJied-," f fo * Tcrtrill. L. De Paenit. C. \i. ■f ■ 'W;e x^ tod p»vli^o[/,ii:ov 'ttccp ccvlwv pvTironvia'^xi ^/mT^Xov iv uanQna. ^aT^ot/cr&ar Athanr.s. Tom. i. P. 413. I tranfr ( 275 ) I tranflate Kvr^^a-Bai, which probably, in order to keep up the antlthefis in the fentence, ought to have been written Xi^T^acr^tzi. Since therefore, Athanajius does not fay any thing againft the mode of baptifm, pra6^ifed among the Arians, but againft their blafphemous colluiions refpeding the names of the bleffed Trinity mentioned in the form; Is It not plain, that fprinkling was efteemed valid In the adminiftration of baptifm, and was accordingly pradifed In that remarkable aera of the church. 4 In the ninth century florillied PFalafridus Strabo, ** the Anabaptifts' grand patron" as one calls him. Speaking of the baptifm of Liccillus, which, according to Bilhop Taylor, St. Laurence adminiftered to him in a prifon, by pouring water On him ; he (IVal. StraboJ 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 " them."* 5 One of Calvin's leafned and pious cotempo- raries was Martin Rucer-, whoflorifhed A. D. 1520. He fays, that " God hath given unto m^n fach a *' rite {i.e. baptifm), that either by a dipping In, '* or wafliing, or sprinkling of water, they " might receive remilTion of lins." -f * NoTANDUM, tion fohini mergcndo, fed ctiam defuper fundendo mul- ios h/iptizatos fuije, & adhiic f'ojje haptizar'u IValafrid. Stralo. De Rebus Ecclef. C. xxvi. P. 415. f ^od Dens ejtifmodi rltum honniiiiiis commendavtt , ut aqtm vel tindtione, ve] ablutione, mtt aspersioke peccatoriim a fe alluUonem acciperent. M. Ttucer. Enarrat. Ep. Patdi a.l Rom. C. vi. P. 289. Mm 2 6 About ( 276 ) 6 About the middle of the fixteenih century lived the learned, the venerable, the modeft Muf- culus'y whofe book intitled Loci Communes ^acra Theologia, contains a rich treafury of pure divi- nity. In that part of it, wherein he confiders 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 ejjential, 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 Augufiin De " Ecckfiajiicis Dogmatibus, Cap. Ixxiv. The ferfon ** to be baptized, fays he [Auguftin), confejfes his *' faith, ^c, and after confeffion, he is either sprin- *' KLED with water, or dipped in if , And. Cyprian, '" Book iv. Epift 7, to Magnus, defends the ufe " of SPRINKLING in baptifui."* — In this memo- rable pafiage three things muft naturally flrike the attentiv*e reader. (1) Mufculus difcards the effentiality 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) Mufculus s quotation from Augufiin, and reference to the opinion of Cyprian, demon- i^rate, that fprinkling with water in baptifm was pradifed in the church, and particularly vindi- * ^od immerjioiitm baptizandi infantis attinet judkamiis banc non fie ejfe m- ccjjarian:, ut non fit lihcrum eccleft'is bapt'izare vel mergendo, xit/ aspergendo. Lijirtatem banc Jervatam ejfc in ecckftis, videre eft in Auguftino dc ccelefiafti- lis d?gmatibui. Cap, Ixxiv. Baptizandus ir,q:i't, confitetur fidem fuam, &c. Sz poft confeffioncm vcl asi'ergitur aqua, vel intingitur. Et Cypri- anus, Lib. iv. Epifi. vii. ad Magnurn ufian aspergendi in taptifinatc tic- find'it. — V/olfgangi Mnfculi. Loci Cc7iwi. de Bspifmo. P. 539. catecl ( 277 ) cated by thefe two great men. And, I Hiould imagine, to every perfon of judgment and candor, the unanimous opinion of this venerable trium- virate would carry as much weight, as the ob- jedions of all the Anabaptifts in the world. Thus have 1 laid before the reader, a few out of the many extracts that might be made from antiquity, to prove that other modes of difpenling baptifm, befides that of dipping, are neither fo modern, nor fo fpurious as our opponents would inlinuate. If it be confidered, as a prefumptive argument added to that taken from the fanftion of antiquity, that the pureft reformed churches, in the prefent day, admit fprinkling or pouring of water as a valid mode of auminiftration; — and that its validity is founded on the extenfive iig- nification of the word Qo-ttu u: ; — on the applica- tion of it in various inftances, where the fuppo- iition of immerlion would incur the groffeft abfurdity ; — on the opinions of the moft eminent Critics, Lexicographers, and Divines j — on the analogy between baptifmal afperlion or efFuiion, and the fprinkling of the blood and Spirit of Christ in our j unification and fan6fification ; — on the various teftimonies which vindicate this analogical reafoning ; — on the memorable concef- fions of Dr. Gale ; — and that the Dutch Anabap- tifts themfelves praclife afTufion : 1 fay, if thefe things be candidly and Impartially confidered, the reader will eafily perceive, with what degree of truth or candor Dr. 5". can affirm, that " in con- *' tending for immerlion, he contends, not for a *' par- ( 273 ) '* particular mode, but for baptlfm itfelf." A contention this, howev^er honeftly intended, which is declarative of the fpint of a party, and muft be carried on by the united interefls of bigotry and fchifm. — A contention, which will ever characte- rize the unamiable fpirit of Anabaptifm, and fpread difcord througli the united airemblies 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 peace; nor to adminifler to the fpiritual profperity of the contenders themfelves. — A contention more worthy of the fons of flrife, or the narrow bi- gots, that dilieminated the tares of judaifm and legality in the church oi Galatia, than of perfons- profelnng a veneration for the gofpel of peace. — '■ And a contention, which we defy its maintaineri? to fupport by truth, and fair criticifm. The xA.nabaptifts infitt much on the refem- blance between immerjion and the burial of Chri x ; which they found upon the figurative language of the Apoiile in Rom. vi. 3, 4. * Suppojing that palTage "* A Ivli'. Sci:;dp, wliOm I have had occafion to introduce, now and then, in conjunction v.ith his twin-brother in controverlV, Tarmciiai the Deacon ; in p. 44, of his bit of lltle-pcge inlmicry, confronts us with 3 few authorities in favor of dipping. The firft is that of Pifcalor. Whether our author's tranflation of the paOage from that leafned man,' is taken imrnediately ft om Pifiator's original work; or whether he has horroxViJ it from fome of his brethren; it is impoffible for me to de- termine- This, however, almoft any reader, who will conflilt the nafliige, may determine; viz. thzt the tranjlntor, has given us a fentencc; wiihout a pviiiclpjl verb, which makes Pifcotor fpeak fuch nonfenfe, as even i,:i a ijliool-bot, would dciervc the lafli. Nor is he more accu- rate in iiis tranliation from Grct'ms; when he informs us, that the antieiit pradticc of in'-mcnTiti n.pp'jar? from " the places cuose for its admi- " r-iftration."' ( 2.79 ) paiTage does allude to their peculiar mode ; our pradice is fupported by a no lefs lignificant ana^ logy. For the pouring of water is emblematical pf the efFuIion of the Redeemer's blood, and the pouring out of his foul in death : the head, the principal part of the fubjei?!:, is put under water, when the element is poured on it: and the takinp" up and delivering the child to his parents or offerers, is figurative of Christ's refarredion. And the allulion of circumftances in this mode of -baptifm, is as fignificant, 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 difference between us and the Ana- baptifls, is j they baptize the head and flioulders, and we the face : they afcribe e£entiality to their " nitration." P. 45. But he cannot qnotc a pafiage, made correiSb to his hand, without blundering. In p. 44, he ufes, and introduces me as ufmg, the term. ■" literal cmcificTwn," and again, '^ literal cruciJlcTmt." Now, if fuch a word as crucificTion 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 for ufing it, fliall be admitted. Indeed, it feems fbme fmall alleviation of Mr. S.'s blunder, that the Juhftantive in queftion, does not occur in his Bible. But furely it does, in his fpelUng-didionary. And, if he think it beneath him to confult that ; yet he might know that there is a wide diflerence be- tween ficrion and Jixion. And, if this obvious diftindlion be not fuf- iicient to aid his " critict^l acumen," I would advife him to look into his Lrt/w-ditSlionary for the words fingo vmAfigo ; and to mark the par- ticiples arifing refpecStively from each. And if this mode of inveftlgat- ing the import of EngUJfi derivatives be not fufficient to fix his fun- dard of orthography, and to help him to write better in future, I give him up, as an incorrigible ignoramus ; that affeBs to be conver- fant in the branches of literature, and yet abounds in folccifms, whea he makes patch-work in EngHjh., j^s Avell as in Latin and Creek. mode; ( 28o ) mode ; but we efteem either mode effeSiiialy tha' neither, ejjential. Having loft fight of Mr. M. for feveral pages back, it is fir I Ihould face him again, before I give him a valediiiory falutation. I would fondly hope, that, upon a cahn review of the arguments and authorities laid before him in the preceding ilieets, he will not in future, decide fo perempto- rily or fo haftily again, upon a fubje6t, 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 Ryland, were to declare from the pulpit " that ** Psedobaptifts never have yet proved their prac- " tice from the word of God;" though we fhoulJ efteem the declaration neither the more candid, nor the truer, for the fantSlion of thefe refpe with which 1 am fure he is belt acquainted : and at leaf}, 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 verfc. Ordinary readers will never be able to follow him in fuch literary foarings ; unlefs he in-^ ^ulge them with the fame happy wings, that elevate his own genius, ;et:''s Reflexions, p. 12 ; from whk-h my quotationr ai\? taken. '* they ( 305 ) *' they rejc6t magiftracy among Chriflians." P. 219. (6) The charge of ^(3A'fr//);z is brought againfi: them, as " difowning the ad m In ifi ration " 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 againfi all who are not of their way." P. 233. (8) " Anabaptifm" he deems " a mortal poifon.'* Ibid. (9) He paints the Anabaptifts as fo many bloody incendiaries J adding, "Good Lord de- ** liver us from a drawn fword in the hand of *' a rampant Anabaptift." P. 248. (10) He calls their minifters a fet of "illiterate fellows, who, *•' from mechanics of the loweft rank were made *' priefts of the high-places, before they knew *' whac a Lexicon was." P. 115. (11) He charges them with being Sabbatarians, or obfervers of the aboliflicd fabbath of the Jews.* (12) He re- prefents them as prac^tifing the extreme undion of Fapijis. *' Let us look into their end" lays Rujfen, " and bring them to their grave : and here, like *' Fapijis, at the laft hour they ufe extreme unc- •* tion." •f- P. 204. (13) He gives the finilhing ftroke to all his accufations, by faying, " Satan Q^q " has * This charge, however, happens to be jnji, and ad Imnlncm. For, Mr. Stciiiiett, in page 228, of his Reflexions, not only admits it refpedl- ing fome of his brethren, but alfo fays, " I do not fcruple to arknow- *' ledge MYSELF one of thofc" (fahhaiarians) " who account it" (the -feventh-day fabbath) " good." f Mr. StenneU fays, in the above-cited page of his Reflexions, *' 'Tis * true, fome of them are of the mind, that this rule, James v. is " yet OBLIGATORY-" A flrange notion of Anabaptifts this, to fup- pofe a cuftom to be ftill in force, when the occalions of imrack, to Twhich it refered, have ccafed. Let it be obferved, however, that ( 30^ ) •" has fcarce broached a herefy in the church •* for thofe feventeen hundred years but fome of *' them have licked it up." P. 211. And a^ain; *' Here is a goodly bead-roll of herelies, which if ** I lirung '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- Je(Stcd together feveral fpecimens of Mr. Rujfen's phrafeology, as well as heavy accufations againft the Anabaptifts of his day. My obvious defign in doing this, is, that the reader may determine, with what degree of juftice Mr. Turner of Bir- tningkam, has declared to the world, " there is ** fuch a 'femblance between David Rujfen's book *' and mine," either as to the ftyle of the former in general, or the obnoxious anecdote which ulhers in our 'femblance-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 fhoLild have taken little notice of his 'femblance, or of the fabricator of it. But when 1 conlider, that he had an opportunity of reviling both per- formances, and muft have had ocular demon - flration of the evident contraji between both, (of which i hope the reader has had fatisfacflory evi- dence) j is not his condud peculiarly aggravated? Jiujfen milreprefented the praiSlice of Anabaptifts, by charging them with holding the extreme nn^'ton of the Papifts, when they only anoint- ed their lick as a probable mean of their recovery. That they were chargeable with an ahfirdity, is evident ; but not with fo flagrant a one as B.iijfcn would iniinuate. ( 3®7 ) and can he be fairly acquitted from the fin o( bear- ing falfe witnefs again/i his mighbour? As to his faying that " RuJJen received the thanks of the ** convocation for his defamatory performance/' this circumlfance is foilted into the narrative, in order to fling a Htiie dirt at our eccleliaftical governors, as if they applauded RuJJen's perfor- mance, becaufe it was defamatory But the reader is to remember that our author is telling a little ftory ; in which he thinks fome coloring 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; I aiTure the remarker, we Ihall be ftrongly tempted to point out " a 'femblance" between him and fomething which fliall be anonymous for the prefent. II. Having taken a view of our author's manner, conlider we next the effulions of his candor and charity. I I happened to Introduce in my Letter to a Baptift-Adini/ier, a quotation from Mr. Wejley\ Notes on the New Teftament, refpe6iing the probability of John's 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 perfec^tly inoffen- five, greatly offends Mr. Jl The very name of Mr. JVeJley, throws him into fuch a violent pa- roxyfm of paffion, that he feems for a feafon to lofe all command of temper; and this indignant fit fo effedually bereaves him of the calm exertion Q_q 2 of ( 3o8 ) of reafon, that, inftead of attempting a refutation of the pafiage taken from Mr. JVeJlifs notes, he flies olf to luch rudenefs of perfonal invedive, as may afford the reader a prefumptive demonftra- tion of the weaknefs of the rcmarker's caufe. Sallies of abufe, lugged thus prepofteroufly into a controverfy, are our author's fubftitutes for argument. After ftyling Mr. PFeJIey an '* old, " artful fophijierj' not content with this grofs abufe, he paffes fentence upon him, in terms equally illiberal ; adding, *' vSurely never did 2 "* greater fophifler handle a pen, or a Bible, or " hung a head over a pulpit." According to the feveral fleps of Mr. Tl's abulive climax, Mr. IV, is (i) Afopkijhr. (2) An old fophifter. (3) An artful old fophifter. (4) The greatcji old artful fophifter, that ever wrote, or preached. The read- er will wonder whd.t provocatioji IsAr.JV. 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- merfed; and 1 happened to tranfcribe the Com- mentator's words. And is this all the injury, that excited Mr. ^.'s indignation? Surely, if any overflowing of paffion ever merited the title of afperitas agrefiis for, by what rule of logic^ does Mr. Tl demoniirate, that, becaufe Mr. fV, thinks the perfons mentioned In Mat. iii. were not immerfed, he is therefore '* an artful old fo~ ** phifler?" Should not the remarker have iiril dece<51ed the fophiftry of the comment, by dint of fair reafoning, before he arraigned the perfon of the commentator and condemned him as an '* old " fophijierf" Since he has not even attempted this J does his condu(5l here exemplify either the calmnefs of the Chriflian, the politenefs of the Gentleman^ or the endowments of the Scholar F 2 Mr. f. charges us ** with taking liberties " with fcripturc." That is, in other words, he blames { 31° ) blames us for reafofihig on It. "What ! is fcrip-' tare contrary to reafon? Or do we wrong in exerting that faculty, while we fearch for truth in a facred volume, which is nothing but the mind of Him who is reason in infinite perfec- tion ? — A narrative is laid before us, in which fcrlpture is lilent as to fome circumftantials. How are Vv'e to be guided in our refearches in this cafe? Certainly, by confidering on which lide there is the greateft degree of probability ; and by deter- mining our rational inquiry accordingly. Thus, truth is found, where reafon preponderates. Apply this to the prefent cafe, and it will appear, with how ill a grace the remarker charges us with •' taking liberties." And when he exclaims " What a horrid fcene of things Ihould we have *' laid before us !" the horrid Jcene exifts only in his bewildered imagination ; the excurlions of which refemble more the chimerical failles of a fick man's dreams, than the calm invefbgatlons of truth and candor. People may fancy " hor- *' rid fcencs," like the philofopher who cried out Vidcor mihi videre, — &.c. but, only cure fuch fanciful folks of the delirium of bigotry, or re- move the jaundiced medium of prejudice; and all thofe fcenes inftantly drop their horror^ and af- fume the moft amiable reprefentations. Befides, we are of opinion that thofe who take matters upon truft, and are guided by the flights of imagi- nation, or the prepolieiiions of bigotry, are more likely to travcrle the " liorrid fcenes" of wild enthufiafm and uncharUablencfs, than they whofe fenti- ( 311 ) ments are the refult of the cahn exertions of right reafon.— But our remarker has rtill more " horrid *' fcenes" prefented to his imagination; for his ideas are full of the terrible. Hear him. " It *' feems to me" (-videor mild videre-, like the dreaming philofopher aforefaid) " that men are " determined, at all events, to contradict the *' great and holy God to his face!" P. 21. Softly, good Sir. Bona verba, qu^fo ! This is a tremendous charge, indeed ! Should not Mr. T. be quite fure, that it is well-grounded? *' To " contradid God — the great and holy God — and " to his face;" is fuch a fpecies of affront to^ the divine Majefly, as no perfon would wilh to be guilty of, who has the fmalleit 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 paffage, with which the awful charge is connected, he will find, that it is brought againft us, only becaufe we draw a rational in- ference from the moft natural fuppolition. Or, in other word§, becaufe we cannot think, con- fiftently with the dictates of reafon and common fenfe, that the vaft multitudes alluded to in Mat iii. were all immerjed by John the Baptift , therefore Mr. T. accufes us of being " deter- " mined to contradict God to his face." Reader, which do you think this man is raofl: remarkable for? YL'is logic, or his charity? Perhaps you will think with myfelf, that the fcale of his arguments contains an equipoife of each ; and that the com- pound ( 312 ) pound of both is lighter than vanity ittclf. And, as to the charge of '* contradicting God," we mull attribu;e the mlfapplication of it, to the terrific Icenes which Mr. Tl's gloomy imagina- tion paints before his eyes; as well as to a defire of frighkning his readers into his pecu- liarities. 3 The remarker is very angry, becaufe I hap- pened to drop a delicate difapprobation of the proceedings of the Americans, as well as of thofe publications which vindicate the principle of their rebellious oppolition to the Mother-country. As Mr. Fletcher has treated this fubjecfl with a mofl: mafterly difcuffion, founded on fcripture, reafon, and the nature of our conliitution, in his Reply to Mr. Caleb Eva?is and Dr. Price -, and we happen to coincide in opinion relpe- Should confcience tell you that *' you have fought againfi the truth; that the " weapons of your warfare are carnal; that you *' have wrote againft baptifm and the Baptifts *' in the same ftyle and fpirit, Saul of Tarfus " would ( 31^ ) '* would have done, before he believed that " you are exceeding mad agabift them-, breathe cut " THREATEN iNGs, &c." {I declare it is well our author did not add "'■ Jlaughter' too) *' fliould " confcience remind you of thefe things; which " God grant !" P. 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, &c." Ibid. 18 As a CARNAL Deist, or one destitute OF THE GRACE OF GoD. *' If a poor camal *' Deiji or any body defiitute of the grace of God, *' had wrote in fuch a flyle, &c. It is language *' EXACTLY AGREEING to a camalhtaVt.''* p. 32. 19 As a DELIBERATE AND PUBLIC SNEERER at things facred. " When I fee you deliberately *' and publicly fneering things facred, &c." P. 33, 20 As an INFORMER. " Views confiftent with " the character of an informer,'* P. 35. 21 As an " ASSASSINATOR of the chara^flei* " of a body of people." Ibid. 22 He infinuates that I wilh the Anabaptifts either in hell or at the Jiake. " I hope you *' don't grudge the Baptifts their watery grave, " and wilh them in a warmer climate.'* P. 37. 23 After all tbofe heavy charges, our author, in perfeft confilkncy with himfelf, inlinuates, I am out of the way of falV'ation. " That it *' may plcafe God to lead you into the good *' old ivay." P. 39. 24 As ( 3^9 ) 24 As if I had comrr/itted a crime of the moft grievous nature, he fummons me to the judg- ment-feat of Chri:K What my doom would be if Mr. T. were appointed allelfor to the Judge, or if the fentence were to be illlied in iXnti cor- refpondence with our author's charitable fyftera, it is not my buiinefs to determine. The reader may form what opinion he thinks moft naturally deducible from the following dark hints. " Let ** me tell you. Sir, facred things are not to be " trifled with. You and I muft furely and lliort- " ly ftand 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 characfber- of one, who fuftains the office of a minlfter tifni, than he feenis qualified for refuting the abfar- dity of tranfdbjiantiation j I would advife him never again to Ihevv his face in tlie field of this controverfy J unlefs he can, with phlegmatic pa* tience, fubmit to the mortification of being — laughed at. But let us fee, how his method of attacking a Popilh tenet will apply to baptijin. He fays, that " the want of one word (children) " in Auls V. 14, v/ill fink our caufe for ever." Then he quotes, (quite mal-apropos in my opi- nion) Jhe words of our Sav.or, on which the Fapijis ground their favorite tenet j which he re- futes by faying (for it is impoliible to call it arguing) " that the v/ords are to be underftood *' metaphorically.'" But might not the PapiJi]M9i\y urge our author's own reafoning in favor of adult-baptifm, againft his logic about tranfub- ftantiation. q. d. " Mr. Remarker, you fay, that " the omiiiion of one w^ord in Adis v. 14, links " the caufe of the Piedobaptifts for ever. Yet *' in commenting upon our Savior's words, " you fay we are to underfland him as declar- *' ing, 'Tliis is (metaphorically) my body, *' But, Mr. Remarker, where is the word meta- " phorically written? Will not, (to adopt your *' own argument and your ov/n words) the. want *' of that one word (metaphorically) fink your caufe *' for ever ? and lie a dead weight on your caufe, " ivhen YOU, Mr. Remarker, are no moref Thus ( 329 ) Thus our author's wonderful logic here, puts a weapon into the hand of a Fapift, and difarms his own boafted reafoning, in favor of adult- baptifm, of all its force. (6) A hint I dropped, refpe(5ling the utility of a liturgical fervice, in order to guide a pub- lic congregation in their addrefles to God, fur- nifhes our author with a frelh opportunity of difplaying his logic. According to cuftom he tells a little flory^ which he borrows from one whom he flyles "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. \ beg leave to confider this unguarded alTertion of our au- thor ;I. As to preaching: to preach is prxdkare verhtim Dei, to publifli or declare the word of God. Whether this pubJication of truth be performed ex-tempore, memoriter, or by notes, it is preaching: becaufe the particular mode' does not affedl the thing itfelf. And, tho* it is much to be wlflied, that the ufe of notes were more out of fafli- ion ; if for no other end but that of afcertaining the originality of the preacher's manufacftures : yet, to make preaching the abfolute mono- poly of an ex-tempore mode, is at once to depretiate a wcll-digefled ciompofition hecaufc it is read ; and to dignify with the undeferved titis of prcachi;ig, every the grofleft piece of incoherence, merely becaufe it is poured forth without notes; and perhaps without premeditation, ar- rangement, or connexion. So far am I, therefore,' from being a pro- felytc ( 330 ) And then he adds " Let me take leave of this " point, by reminding you, that a bare com- *' mendation fclyte to our author's docStrine on this head ; that, although I wifh as much as poflible to difcountenance the ufe of thofe -pulpit-crutches: yet, I had rather liften to the reading of a well-connedled difcourfe at any time, than to declamatory efFuhons delivered ex tempore, when the matter and manner exhibit a difgufting mixture of aukward vo- ciferation and immethodical rant. II. When the remarker fays, *' reading is not praying," he might have added, " nor is ex-tempors " efFufion, praying :" for, the mode is not the thing. Prayer in its e^ffcncCy is the fpiritual breathing of the heait Gon-ward; and may therefore be performed without any verbal expreffion whatever. A& the mode of expreffion does not necejfurily enter into the nature of the duty; confequently the difference of the mode does not in the leafl afie«3; the thing. Words are but the clothing of our thoughts ; and the manner in which the former are exprelTed, cannot injure the exiftencc of the latter. Would not any perfon of common lenfe ftare at that man, who fliould argue, that a perfon cannot think, becaufe he metho- dizes his thoughts, and cloathes them in a form of well-digefled expref- Jlon ? or that reading an excellent compofition, which is the refult of deep ftudy, is not thinking ? Equally abfurd is our remarker, who would exclude fraying from one mode, and confine it to another. But hit abfurdity will appear ftill more evident, if we confider, (i) That if none can be faid to pray but fuch as prefent their addrefles ex tempore ; then this extemporaneous mode is ejfential to prayer. But this is con- tradiifted by matter of faA. For, a man may by mere dint of in- genuity, vent his thoughts in prayer as well as in preaching, without any premeditation, and yet be deftitute of any fplrituality in either. Many a profelTor of religion has acquired an aftonifliing volubility in uttering words ex tempore in prayer ; who notwithftanding has never experienced the gift of praying -with the fpirit. Therefore an ex-iemporc efFufion no more conftitutes the ejfence of prayer, than a fimilar mode is eflential to deep thinking, (a) If reading a well-digefted form be not praying; then thofe who pracHiice that mode of congregational devo- tion, are wholly fliut out of all pretenfions to the elfence of a duty, which enters into the \'ery nature of true chriftianity : and fmce the difciples of our Lord prayed by a form prefcribed to them by their great Mafter ; according to our author's logic, they did not pray at alh (3) -' is notorious, that many minifters, who loudly exclaim agalnft a form, are guilty of equal formality with thofe, from whom they differ. For, I myielf have heard the fame prayers ufcd without the fmallcft variation, from the beginning to the end of the year; only with this trifling difference, that inftead of being -written, they were i 33^ ) *' mendation of any thing. Is no proof of the *' legality or utility of it." And let me remind T t 2 our were uclivered memoritir. (4) Confidering how many are palpably dif- qualified for being the mouth of the people, in the folemn duty of prayer ; and bow frequently congregrations are obliged to liflen to cfliifions, replete with irreverence, vain repetition, and grofs impro- priety of language ; to obvir.te fuch difagreeable incidents, as well as to afford the congregation an opportunity of uniting equally with the niinifter in tlieir joint addrefles to the divine Majefty ; fcripture and the very nature of things concur to prefcribc fuch a public form, as may at once aiTift the miniftcr, and edify the people. And fo fullv iras the illuftrious Reformer of Geneva convinced of the great utility of liich a public form, that Fuller, in his Church-Hiftory, Book vii. P. 426, fays, " Mafter Calvin is therein" («. e. in his Letter to the ProU'^or,) " very pofitive for a sett form : whofe words defervc our tranilation and obfervation. Formulam prcciim (faith Calvin) & ritutim ecckfiajlicorum valde prcho, ut certa ilia extet ; a qua ne paftorihus dif- cedere in funiiione fuel liceat : I Ut conj'ulatttr quomndam ftmpliciteti & impe- ritiiC. a Vt certius conjlct omnium inter fe ecclcfiarum coufenfus. 3 Ut chviam incatur defiltorix quorundam levitati, qui novationes qua/dam affeBant. Sic igi- tur Jlatum ejje catechifmum oportet, Jiciam facramentorum adminijlrationcm, pub- licam item precttm formulam." That is : "I do highly approve that there fhould be a certain form of prayer, and ecclefiaftical rites ; from which it fliould not be lawful for the paflors themfelves to de- part. I That provifion may be made for fome people's ignorance and unflcilfulnefs. 2 That the consent of all the churches among them- felves may more plainly appear. 3 That order may be taken againfl the unfettled levity of fuch as delight in innovations. Thus there ought to be an eftabliflied catechism, an eftabliflied adminiftration of sacraments, as alio a PUBtic form of praver." — See Mr. Toplady't Hijioric Proof Sec. P. 370. This teftimony is the more valuable, as it precedes not from a Churchman, who might be fufpecSted of undue attachment to his ovni ecclefiaftical rites, but from an impartial Pref- lytcrian ; whofe opinion is at once declarative both of his wifdom and his candor; as well as decifive 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 convicStion, that Church-men can occaflcnally drop their forms in every branch of their public miniftratlons, and appear to as great advantage as others. Ai\ wc contend for, is ; ia order that a public congregatiou fliould n6t be always ( 332 ) our remarker, that his bare condemnation " of any " thing" (efoecially when " bare" of argument, of always left at the mercy of extemporaneous (and often erroneous) cfFu- fions ; that the ofnciating minifter fliould deliver himfelf, efpecially in his petitionary addreCes to God, with 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 fervice, on theie accounts, of the higheft utility. 1 know it is often urged, in the language of Mr. Benjamin fi-'aViin, that our fervice is " a " form of human invention." But how trifling is the objection .'' If Anabaptifts inveigh at our liturgy, becaule it is a form ; the fame ground of invedtive would lie againfl: the Lord's prayer, and the difci- fles who ufed it. — But it is " a form of invention." And what then ? If it be according to truth, is it invalidated, lecatife it is an inven- tion ? " I NEVER thougut" (fays Mr. Baxter, in his Plain Scripture- Proof, P. 271,) " all things of human invention in God's worfliip, either *' will-worfliip, or unlawful. Many circumflantials muji he for the *' fpecies qf human determination or invention, which God hath de- *' termined only in gcnere : that is the doctrine of the old non- *' conformists." Why fliould not minifters, in praying as well as preaching, flrive " to find out acceptable words" ? Is not an invention, which is the refult of deep meditation and fcripture -inquiry, as ' much calculated to edify, as an ex-tempore one ? Or is a prayer, de- livered ex-tenipore, lels an invention, than one Jiudicd and read ? Has not the latter the conliderable advantage of being a well-digefted compofition ? while the former, being an extemporaneous invention, is frequently encumbered with repetition, and improper, ,not to fay irreverent, expreffion ? 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 wifdom, find out and compoic 3S edifying a prayer, as a man, who Hands up in a pulpit, and, with- out any premeditation, pours forth his petitionary addrefles, in lan- guage not always proper, and in a manner, fometimes perhaps des- titute of reverence, _ as well as fenfe ? Why fliould the one be condemned under the depretiating epithet of an " invention?" and the other, not ? Archbifliop Cranmer, for inflancc, compofes in his fludy an excellent colledt, full of truth, and expreflive of the foul's devout breathing heaven-ward. Mr. Wallin, or Mr. Turner, or Mr. Any-body-elfe, delivers his addre/Tes ex-tempore, in language unpre- meditated and undigefled. We will fnppofe that Mr. W. or Mr. T. fpeaks down-right nonfenfc, or utters palpable error, in his intercef- fory efTufions. Shall the former 'oe run down as an " invention," be- caufq ( .333 ) of candcr, and of decency) " is no proof" of the illegality or inutility of it. — Though he " takes *' leave" of this point, yet with Ih'ange incon- fiftency, he refumes it in the very next fentence ; and inveighs at our Liturgy, by an abulive com- parifon between it, and Diana, the abomination of the Ephe/ians ; and between thofe who ufe our Liturgy, and the heathen worlhipers of that caiifc it is ftudied; and the latter cried up, merely hcatife it is an invention, mftudled aad undrgejicd? By this ftrange arguing, an inven- tion of ex-tempore nonfenie or error, may be proved of fuperior fanc- tity to the moft folid compofition, becaufe it is read. But our Liiturgy, is " a form of human invention." And is not an e);-lc:i:porg prayer a '^ human" invention ? If Mr. Walliii objects to our formu- lary, becaufe fomething human enters into its compofition ; then all his own ex-temporc efiufious muft be — altogether divine: othcrwife his objection has no force. But if he mean, that the prayers of our church are abfolutely " kumaii," as containing nothing of God and truth, but eveiy thing of 7nan's frailty; hs is grofsly miftaken. The compilers of our Liturgy, it is true, -were men ; and [o are their modern objedtors. But they were men — of eminent learning — of ge- nuine piety and of deei? acquaintance with the fcriptures. They were Reformers, Martyrs — men, who fealed the truth with their blood. And, although their compolitions, as to their verbal clothing, are hu- man : yet, as ~to their intrinfec worth, they are divine. For, if the inherent gold of gofpel-truths may be faid to render a produiSiion divine ; there is then as much of divinity in the Liturgical lervices of our church, as in any or all the e x-t em pore .compofition $ of Anabap- tifts ; from the firft founder of that feA, down to Mr. Benjamin WalUn aforelaid. And, as well to give a fancSlion to our fentiments on this fubjed:, as to point out the divine original, from which we derive the ufe of a form of prayer ; I prefent the remarkcr with the fol- Jowing lines, which I would advife him to confider maturely. " Hofea, Joel, and Ifaiah, Were Jews, as well as Hezekiah, Yet us'd and taught z form of prafr ; Their works fay how, and when, and where. 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 Chridians, or for Jews." abomi' ( 334 ) abominable Idol. To which piece of irreligious and inconcluiive afTiniilation I cannot better re- ply, than in our author's own words, which immediately follow. " But what was all this to •* the purpofe? Just nothing." — He is very angry, becaufe I have hinted at Mr. M's dlf- qualiiicatlon for making any improvement in our 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 poffefs abilities fufficient to fuggeft an improvement in our //- turgical fervice. Ergo, I fay it cannot be im- proved at all. That is, according to our logician, Mr. M. is every-body; and to fay, a compolition 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 ivant 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 abilities in the pulpit, by his late produifiion from the prefs ; I'm fure he does *' need" 2i Li- turgy to afTift him in his minlftratlons : and as I know of none fuperlor to that ufed by the Church of England, I therefore moft earneftly recommend it to Mr. Ti's pious adoption : and if methcd, frgument, language, modejiy, charity, and a proper application of fcripture- analogy, have any thing to do in the delivery of public difcourfes j 1 lliould imagine the remarker, of all preachers living, ought to ( %i6 ) to fludy thefe neceffary Ingredients ; and to truft rather to well-digefted notes, than either to his memory or his invention. Thofe who cannot walk, without crutches, appear doubly lame, when they affed to throw them away. (7) More logic ftill ! He fays, p. 25. *' What has a palTage in Genefis to do with baptifm ?" The paflage he refers to, is that which 1 have prefixed as the motto, to the title-page of my Letter to a Baptift-Minifter; and is the following. 1 will be A God to tke, and io thy seed after thee. In an improvement of this covenant - promlfe, made to Abraham and his jetd, of which circum- cifion under the law, was a confirming 7?^;? and JeaU as baptifm is, under the gofpcl ; I have ad- vanced fome arguments, which, it is manifeft, our remarker knows not what to do with. Ac- cording to his ufual method, he palfes them over in perfed filence ; which his prudence judged mofi advifable. But on the^ fcripture-analogy, which fupports thefe arguments he makes an indire(5t attack ; by afking fuch a queflion, as would in- cline one to fufped, that he thought the Old Teflament 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 inflitution under the latter, can receive no fan6fion 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. ( 336 ) obje6^ion, which our author makes to the fcrlp- ture from Genefis^ as well as to other corref- pondent pafTages, both In the Old and New Tef- tament, is, that they are not " plam texts of *' fcripture." So he argues (p. 25 :) " There Is *' nothing hke plain texts of fcripture for carry- ing conviction." That is ; the word baptijm is not mentioned verbaiim and literatim in the paf- fage; and therefore It Is not a "plain text;" and cannot be admitted as an evidence In favor of the fubjed. But the objecSlor Jliould know, that as the Old Teftament is an obfcure revelation of the will of God, fome of the plaineft, as well as moft Important dodrines 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, paffages. In that obfcure part of re- velation, are inadmiffible as evidences to any par- ticular truth, merely becaufe they are not fyl- 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 apoftles ; but likewife to ftrike at the autho- rity of the whole Old Teftament. Suppofe our author had been prefent, when our Lord vindicated the docSlrine of a future refur- rec^lion, againft the cavils of the Sadducses; as recorded in Matth. xxii. 31, 32. The fcripture upon which Jesus founded his arguments on that occalion, is a quotation from Exod. ill. 6. *' I am ( 337 ) '' I am the God of Abraham, and the God of " Ifaac^^c,'* This fcripture contains a covenant- declaration, the fame in fubftance with that in Gen. xvii. 7. If therefore the want of the word haptifm, in the latter paffage, be a proof that it Cannot have any reference to that fign of the co- xenant ; the want of the word refurre^ion in the former, muft, according to the fame mode of arguing, be admitted as a demonftration, that 'Exod. iii. 6, cannot evince the rifing of the dead. And, if the remarker had made one among [he circle of the Sadducees juft mentioned, ihould he not have objeded to our Lord's quotation from Exodus, in the following manner, q, d. " Don't *' tell me of your quotations from the OWTefta- " ment. — There's nothing like plain texts of *' fcripture Co carry conviction. — What has a *' text in Exodus to do with the refurre^ion? — ** The want of that one word (refurreSlion) muft " link your caufe for ever." Thus the remark- er's wonderful logic is retorted upon himfelf: and the retort proves at once the profanity and abfurdity of his reafoning; becaufe it lliews, 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 refurre6lion : and, it is fubmitted to the judgment of a reader of the fmalleft dif- cernment, whether, upon the fame principle that the remarker is an oppugner of Infant-baptifmj U u he ( 338 ) he ought not to commence a Sadducee, For, ^ if the want of what he flyles plainnefs in one paflage of fcripture frem the Old Teftament de- termines him againfi: Infant-baptifm ; why Ihould not a limilar circumftance, in another paflage, fix his determinations againft the doctrine of a iuiurc refurre6iion? — So much for the remarkers thoughts on plain texts, and the plain abfurdity which plainly attends his reafoning on them. (8) In p. 18, the remarker affeds 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 fcnfe of a word, — of writers, both fa- *' -cred and profane, ancient and modern, Sec." When I firft dropped on this paffage, the ftyle of which is fo extremely turgid, I thought, ' Well, now we may expe6\ fomething greater than a few undouhtedlys, round affirmations, moft certainlys, due. Surely our author is now going to enter upon a ferious examination of his fubjeft, and will favor us with fomething more conclulive than his mere ipfe dixit.' But it was a moiaitaln in labor, and the production difappointed my expe(5tations. Our remarker only talked about thefe " numerous au- *' thorities," — about them, reader, and about them •^ — ^for, lo! he has not produced one of them. And, indeed, why Ihould I be furprifed at this ridiculous ilfue of fuch a pompous exordium f when i hear him declare for his brethren, that . ** they pay no regard to church-hiflory, fa- *' thers, fynodsj criticifms on the Greek, &cr" Ibid. Yet, ( 339 ) Yet, after inlying, he " paid no regard to cri- " ticifiiis on the Greek,'* he, in the very next fentence, {ays, " However, let us pay a mo- " ment's attention to the import of the Greek f' Thus he fays and unfays j advances and retreats; vindicates and contradicts himfelf, in the fame breath! Rare mode of difputation! To what end is it thus conduced ? " For faJJiion's fake" truly ! That is ; the remarker " pays no regard *' to criticifms on the Greek," becaufe that is his '* falhicn :" but " he does pay a moment's *' attention to the import of the Greek," becaufe it is cur " falhion." Inimitable condefceniion ! Aftonilhing ingenuity of our critical fajliion ma- ker ! Search the whole compafs of letters ; ex- amine the whole circle of the literati; rummage all the productions of authors, facred or profane, antient or modern, in profe or verfe ; and I dare fay fuch a " faJJiion" of criticizing and commenting, as this of our author, was never before introduced into the literary world ! After, therefore, nmitioning " the authority of •' the befi: 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 demonftration that '^a.'7r7i(% iig- ** nifies to plunge or overwhelm, only," without fo much as even attempting to ftumble on fuch proof: — after railing our expectations to a • prodi- gious pitch, by talking of the " beft writers, ^'^ lexicographers, numerous authorities, writers U u 2 " facred ( 340 ) " facred and profane, &c. &c." what Is the up- fhot 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 vyill make an irreliftible fliock upon them. — " It muft he undoubtedly ** CERTAIN that plunging is baptizing -, and that ** Jprinkling is not baptizing." 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 fajliion perfedly new f And, for the introdudion of it, does not the author bear away the palm from all the writers antient and modern ? Cedite Roman'i fcriptores, cedlte Graiit (9) Although I am well nigh tired out, with Reviewing the extraordinary fpecimens of the rf- marker's 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 circumftance — -that of only mentioning, without making a lingle comment on the Anabaptifts* method of *' giving in experiences" — has thrown our author into fuch a rage, that he hardly keeps up common decency in his language, or common charity in his fentiments. If his ani- madverfion which follows, favored only of the abujive, at which the remarker has a fcurrilous adroitnefs ; I Ihould probably pafs it over in lilence. But, as it teems with falfhood, and re- Hefts an undeferved afperlion on the Church of England^ ( 341 ) England, 1 cannot help attempting, at leaft, to wipe oif the dirt, which this Anabaptift zealot flings at our Alma Mater. Hark! how he falli- lies and abufes, in a breath. " There is no " fuch culioni in your church. The thief, the ** whore-monger, the blajphemer, &c. may approach *' your communion-table, and no queftion ailced, " 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- ligion, is certain. But, that ilie is, therefore, remifs and inditferent about thofe pre-requilites, neceflary in an approach to her communion, is equally falfe. Let any perfon of candor only perufe her folemn exhortations preparatory to the Lord's fupperj and the feveral branches of falutary difcipline contained in her commu- pion-fervice ; and then let him fay, whether our church, as Mr. Turner fhamefally inlinuates, to- lerates thofe beafts of the people " thieves, whore- ■" mongers and biafphemers," to approach the moft 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's body and blood. The following are among the awful warnings iTie gives to fuch. '* If any of you be a blafphemer of God, an hiiiderer or flanderer of his word, an adulterer^ or be in malice or envy, or in any pther grievous crime 5 repent you of your fins, or .^'2 ) or elfe come not to that holy table^ left, after taking of that holy facament, the Devil enter Into you, and fil! you full of all iniquities, and bring you to deftrudlion both of body and foul."* Nor does our C'lurch hold out thefe alarming declarations merely in terror jn, or put thtni in- to the hands of her ecclcliaftical fons only as brutum fulmen-, but Ihe moreover, in lh*i(5l con- formity to the facred fcriptures, urges upon her Clergy the awful neceliity, and inverts them with a canonical power, of guarding the holy communion againfl the unhallowed intruHon of profanenefs and irreliglon; giving them the flridl- eft charge to expel and adiiiit their communi- cants, according as they ailorn or dilgrace, by their condud, the profellion of chriftianity. Yea, fo ftrid is the difcipline of our church in this refpe6^, that fhe iffues out a prohibition againft railers ; and under that denomination of incon- iiftcnt profeflbrs, I am perfuaded, ilie would in- clude the remarker himfelf, and not admit hiin to her table; according to that apoftolic injunc- tion In i. Cor* v. ii. To ail this, perhaps, it will be obje6^ed, that fome Clergymen in the Church cf England are fo ]ax and indifcriminate in the application of dif- cipline, as to incur the charge which the re- marker brings againft our church in general. But, fuppofing fome minifterial characters 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 candor or logic, is the inconlirt- ency. of fuch to be fixed upon the church itfclf? when her whole fervice mcikes the moft rigorous proviiion .igalnil: fuch profanation of her ordi- nances? Belides, though it muft be confelTed, that there is a rooft criminal relaxation of dif- cipline in the prefent day, particularly refpeding the due adminift ration of the Lord's fupper; yet there are, blcf^ed be God ! fome confcien- tious difciplinarians within the pale of the Church of England, who would as foon cut off their right hands, as permit *' ihe thief , the whoremonger, or ** the blafphemer to approach the communion- *•' table, without taking any notice •*' as the re- marker falfly iniinuates. Yea, I will be bold to fay, and can prove it by ilubborn fa6ls, that the excellent conflitution of our church, enables her minifters to acl: with as great boldnefs m the delivery of doctrines, or the exercife of difci- pline, as any, in the circumftances of the re- marker. Thus, have I attended Mr. T. through the principal branches of his Remarks-, and cannot but obferv^e, that fuch produdions as his, fhould always make their appearance, under fuch cir- cumftanccs, as are befl calculated to conceal the name of the author, and even that of their birth- ^ace : — circumftances, to which the remarker has, liitherto indeed, paid the mofl artful attention j. and for his fkilful management of which, he me- rits the thanks q( all the anonymous fcribbiers of the day. But, as he has now given us a fample C 344 ) fa m pie of his ftyle ; whether a fecond produc- tion comes forth, with or without a name j we lliall be able to determine its origin, by com- paring the features of the one with the other; 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 productions, hitherto, have proved, that he is extremely deficient in both : and, having ac- quitted himfelf fo indifferently, here I leave him, " With all his blujhing honors thick upon him!" while I prefent the intelligent reader with the following EXTRACT from Dr. Watts's Sermon, intl- tled '* Chriftian Baptifm" Matth, xxviii. 19. (Which I the rather do, becaufe the fenti- ments of this great man refpecfling the mode, at once corroborate and recapitulate fome ar- guments urged in this treatife ; as well as fhew, how Ihamefully difingenuous muft every at- tempt be, to prefs this eminent Divine into the caufe of Anabaptifm.) ** I precede now," fays the Do6^or, " to the inquiry, IVhat is the manner of performing this ceremony'' of baptifni ? The Greek word ^uTfji^oo, fignifies to wqfh any thing, properly by water coming over it. Now there are feveral ivays of fuch walking, viz: sprinkling water- on ( 34t> 5 on it in 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 undetermined in fcripture to one par- tlcular mode; therefore, any of these ways of walhing may be fulticient to anfwer the pur- pofe of this ordinance. Now, that the Greek word lignifies wajliing of a thing in general by water coming over it, and not always by clippings is argued by learned men, not only from antient Greek authors, but from the New Tejiament itfelf; as, Luke XI, ^B. '* The Pharifees marvelled that " Jesus had not firft wajhed before dinner;" irt Greek " was not firft baptized :" and can it be fuppofed that they would have him dip himfelf in water ? Mark vii. 4. " The Pharifees, when they come from the market, eat not, except they are walhed," /. e. baptized: furely it cannot mean, except they were dipped. And, if this fliould be reftrained to lignify wafhing their hands only^ yet it does not neceffarily lignify dipping them, as " Elijha poured water on the hands of Elijah." ii. Kings, viii. 11. Yet further, they pra<5tifed the wafhing of tables (in Greek, of beds), as well as cups and velTels. Now beds, could not ufually be wailied by dipping. Heb. ix. 10. The Jews had " divers walliing-s" (in Greek, baptifms) which were 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 palTed by. ** Beftdes, it is faid further on this head, iha.t pouring or fprinkling more naturally re- prefents moft of the Jpiritual bleffings lignified by baptifm; viz. the sprinkling of the elood of Christ on the confcience, or the pouring out of the Spirit on the perfon baptized; or sprin- kling him with clean water ^ 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 lin thereby." P. 5". As I am informed, Mr. M. employed Mr. Jofeph Jenkins, of IVrexham, to correct the prefs for. him, (which 1 fufpe6l to have been the cafe, from a ftudied omijjion in the title-page of Mr. M.'s pamphlet); and as that gentleman hath helped Mr. A4. to a note, out of his little * Syftematic Creed,' and, probably, hath '^^ fuggejied" feme more ^'hints'' in the note-making way, to a convenient execution of which his fuperintending the prefs quietly contributed: 1 wifh Mr. M". would adopt fome method of informing me, what notes were fabricated by himfelf, and what, by Mr. Ji that, in my future Rejoinder, I may not con- found together the fabricators themfelves. The End of the ift. Part of the Rejoinder. CON- CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. HE author exprcffes his unwIUingnefs to re- engage in difputationj 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 neceflary to oppofe Ana- baptifm. Gives a little hiftoric iketch of the commencement and progrefs of the prefent controverfy ; and points out the malevolence and ignorance of the twin-difputants, Meflrs. Sandys and Farmenas. 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 cxpoftulates with the " severe opposer" on his irreverent mode of attacking Infant-baptifni from the pulpit, and on his indelicate manner of abuling certain ^^ endowed" ecclefiaftics from the prcfs. P. 53 81. X X 2 CHAP, CONTENTS. CHAP. IL Mr. M.'s do61-rine of the ejfentiality of dipping farther expofed and refuted. His explana- tory vindications on that head, incur additional abfurdity and glaring felf-contradi6lion — Ani- madverfions 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 either with truth or decency. . Some Queries propofed to Anabaptifis, P. 82,- 124-. C H A P. III. Some flrldures 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 Christ, and opening the door to *' a thoufand innovations of dangerous confe- quencc," retorted and refuted. — Mr. A/.'s mode of RIDICULING HIS BRETHREN, expofcd j and his attempts to evade the force of my for- mer firJdurcs on that head, proved to be del- titute of truth and fair reprefentatlon. Some preliminaries ftated, refpeding the mode of iDaptifm. P. 125— — 144. CHAP. IV. Analogical reafoning from the effulion of the Spirit to the mode of admlniftering baptifm, by pouring or fprinkling of water, fupported by argument y and the authorities oiVofJius and Chem- fiitius, A remarkable corrcfpondent telHmony froiT^ CONTENTS. from Origen. Dr. Stennett's, and Mr. Af.'s ar- guments-, in favor of total immerfion drawn from the ufe of the word 'ZarPiCo and the Hebrew tebel, proved to be weak and fallacious. Memorable Concessions from Dr. Gale con- lid e red. P. 144 174. CHAP. V. Baptismal aspersion, an emblematical repre- fentation of our jujiification by the blood, and of our fandification by the Spirit of Christ. — The objedions of Mr. M. and his Oracle on this head, confronted with fcripture, reafon, and the ftriking teftimonies of Calvin, Bcza, 'I'ilenus, VoJJius, Lightfoot, &c. Dr. S.'s criticifm jon the ^icKpof^oig '^cuTfjiG-iJioig divers baptijmsy men- tioned in Heh. ix. 10 ; as well as his wonderful doctrine of gmus and /pedes, by which it is fupported, proved to be equally fallacious and abfurd. P. 175 214. CHAP. VL Mr. M.'s irreverence and abufe farther expofed. — His arguments, in favor of immerfion, taken from the fuperftitious walhings of the Fharifces and all the Jews, invalidated. Be%a, Dr. Pocock and IVall, unite in fuppoling that to be only a walhing of the /lands, which the apoftle calls a being baptized. The application of the word Q^TTJi^M to the bloody baptifm of Christ, and to the baptifm in the cloud, &c. not neceffarily including the idea of immerjion, Examples of ]Daptifms in fcripture, conlidered The Note- maker's CONTENTS. viakers tranllation of a pallage from IVitfius^ and his indired charge againlt us, ofbialphe- moiis reafonmg, ftript of the coloring of faif- hood, chicanery and fophiftry. P. 214 256. CHAP. VII. Thofe pailagcs in the Old 'Teftamcnt and j^pocrypha, where the word '^a-Tfji^uj occurs, confidered. Its lignification farther afcertained from Critics, Lexicographers, and Divines. The force of Dr. 5 's quotations from Calvin, Beza, Voffius^ repelled; and the dilingenuity of them, dete«fied. " — Some additional teflimonies from antiquity in favor of baptifmal ajptrfion. The debate re- fumed with the *' jevere oppofer." A few heads of advice propofed to his ferious conli- deration. P. 257 288. CHAP. VIII. The feveral extraordinary fpecimcns of Mr. T'ur- ners manner, charity, and logical REASONING, conlidercd. The fallTiood, futility, and malevolence of all his Remarks, ex- pofed. His criticifms, refpe(?i:ing the mode and Jubjeds of baptifm, proved to be nugatory and inconclufive. The inftances of unchari- table judging, fcattered throughout his pam- phlet, declarative of the true fpirit of a *' red" " hot Anabaptiji:' P. 289 344. CONCLUSION. A confirming teftimony, from Dr. IVatts, P. 344 346. ER R A- ERRATA. P. 8. L. 4. for fuppofitiom read fuppofititious. — P. 14. Penult, for devotees r. devotees. — P. 28. L. 26. for pannic r. panic. — P. 35 L. 27. for ///^/d" r. //^f/y. — P. 62. L. 5. for exagerativg r. exaggerating P. 107. L. 24. dele that, — P. 134. L. 14. for Pcedo- haptifi r. Fadobaptifis, — P. 183. L. 2. in the Note, iox fangine r. /anguine. — P. 230. L. 9. for tfod r. troden. — P. 246. L. 14. for achamenia r. ach<£menio. — P. 255. L. 2. after the word water ^ infert ' as it flands in the original/ — P. 274. L. 2. in the i\otey after (xa-s^noc fupply )j. — P. 290. L. 15. iox Jiolc r. Jiolen. — P. 291. L. 8. for Sybil r. Sibyl. — P. ^94. L, 22. for Deucalion r. Prometheus, Preparing for the Prefs, and will be PubliJJied as foon as the Author's father ylvocations will permit j THE REJOINDER: O R, Infant-Baptifm farther Vindkated On the Ground of Scripture, Reason and Antiquity: Being a full Reply to the principal Obje(flionS' oi Anabaptifts in genera}, and of Dr. Stcnnett, and Mr. Samuel Medley, in particular. " Coiifuetudo ccckjiie in baptizandis parvulis neqiiaquam fperncnda ejl, " nee omr.ino crcdenda, niji apostolica eff'ct tr^ditio." Augustin. Part II. Shrewjhury. Printed by T. Wood, Bookfelkr.- Of whom may be had, 1 A Letter to a Bapti/i-Minifter, Price is. 6d, 2 A Reply to Parmenas. Price 6d. 3» Jehiis Looking-Glafs, Price 6d* v^':> ■'^.w Wl. ••^