A VINDICATION OF THE Apostolic and Primitive Manner OF BAPTISING BY Immersion. IN A Letter to Mr. George Keith: WITH Remarks upon a Second Friendly Epistle, Written to him, from one who Styles himself Trepidantium Malleus. LONDON, Printed for H. Walwyn, at the Three Legs in the Poultry, at the End of the Old-Jury, 1700. Mr. Keith, YOU have very commendably disengaged yourself from many Prejudices in ●wncation and Interest, to make an Impartial Enquiry into the True Principles of Christian Religion; but you must expect the same Discouragements for so doing, that every honest Enquirer before you, has met withal. Your Old Friends will reproach you with Apostasy, and your New Ones, if you be not well ware, will make you an Apostate from Truth. The several Zealots from all Quarters fill your Ears with, Lo! here is Truth, and Sing Loud Hosannah's to their several Systems; but I hope you are so good and so wise a Man, as to believe 'em at your leisure. Your having been imposed upon already, aught to make you wary and cautious in giving your Assent for the future; and I am sure you cannot justify it to your own Understanding, if you too hastily engage in any Religious Communion amongst us. You have seen enough of Fair Pretence to Truth and Goodness, so as not to be readily drawn in by a Specious Appearance. Believe not every Spirit, is a Divine Oracle, and you had never greater reason to regard it than now, when every Party aims at making you their Proselyte. You do well to hear, and examine what they say, but your Prudence will Instruct you to consider whom you take for your Guide. Give me leave as your Friend to put you only in mind of the Men of whom you ought to beware. First, I think you aught to beware of the Courtship and Discourses of the Men of mighty Pretences and Confidence, who talk over all their Scheme in Religion, with the same Assurance as if they had Immediate Inspiration; nay, if you can have Faith to believe 'em, they won't fail to let you know they are often Inspired. In the next place, you ought to beware of the Men of Excess in Devotion, or the Devout Biggots, who by the Lustre of their Specious Piety, may tempt you to fall in Love with their mistaken Principles. In the Third place, be sure to be upon your Guard when you happen to Converse with some Persons truly Religious; who nevertheless will not allow you the use of your Reason in several Points of Religion, but make it their Common place to disclaim it, and decry the Persons who make the best use of it they can. And in the Fourth place, I think it will be needless, since you are no Stranger to Learning, to put you in mind of having no regard to a certain sort of Men, who are Notorious Quacks in Religion. In short these Men are such Bunglers in good Sense and Reason, that I dare say you are ware of 'em already. But in the last place, you cannot be too wary in your Conversation with a Blustering noisy Pedant, who has more Wisdom and Learning in his own Opinion, than all the Ancients and the Moderns; who is infallible in his Judgement, and irrefutable in his Arguments: who makes wonderful Discoveries of other men's Errors, and more wonderful Confutations of 'em, but will not be obliged to acknowledge his own: who marches up and down from Coffee-house to Coffee-house to hand about his Notions, and to magnify his Conquests: Who looks as big as the Great Mogul with a Scrap of Latin, and a little New Testament Greek; vainly admires the in-considerable thing himself, and more vainly expects that others should do so too: Who just knows so much of Books and Languages as to give you their Titles, and call Things by their Names, and can despise every body, but the despisable Man himself. If your ill luck makes you acquainted with this Man, you will soon discover him by his undiscreet Zeal and Ostentation: He'll tell you a fine Story of his own Capacity, and bravely undertake to prove some New Hypothesis, by Arguments known to no body, and convincing to no body but himself; and if you can bear with his Impertinence, he'll be Scribbling on in perperpetuum, to show you his own Skill in Controversy, and your Mistakes: But then by those very Writings of his you may know him; for at the very first taste you'll find they contain nothing else, But lose In-coherent Matter, dull Criticisms, foolish Stories, idle Banter, stupid Drollery, and in short, the whole Family of the Insipids. There's a certain Author you know, whose Writings this Character very well fuits; who will at last undoubtedly convince all that Read his Friendly Epistles, his Apologies and Reprimands, and his Vindiciae Antibaxterianae, that no Man that ever Printed on any Subject, can be so completly Dull, and so remarkably Scurrilous as himself. I need not cite the Pages and the Expressions, but I refer you to his whole Second Friendly Epistle to you for one scandalous Instance. The Author of this Friendly Epistle, Mr. Malleus (as he desires to be called) excuses himself with an air of Indignation, pag. 4. from proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies only to Plunge, for that he is sure is a mistake; which after his Comical Fashion, he endeavours to prove from the Original Words used in the Texts, Mark 7.4. and not as he has twice miscited it 4. and 7. Heb. 9.10. and not the 11. as he makes it. cited in the Margin. But notwithstanding his great Confidence in his Proof from these Passages, may it not still be questioned, whether his Instances have any other Argument in 'em, unless it be to prove the flat contradiction to what he asserts? For the words formed from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly refer to the hands in St. Mark and St. Luke too; Luke 11.38. and to make the Phrase complete, the Greek must run in St. Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. unless they wash their hands, and in St. Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. that he had not first washed his hands; by an ordinary grecism of an Accusative after a Verb Passive, which every one of the Authors, Fr. Ep. p. 2. miserable Grecians, very well knows, but himself. Now, that the Jews washed their hands any other way than we, and all the World do, by Plunging 'em in the Water, lies upon our Author's hands to prove; and there it will continue to stick; I dare say, and without being put to a Plunge, he'll never be able to maintain it. Heb. 9 & 11. But Mr. Malleus refers you to another Text in the Hebrews; ay, so he does: But he miscites the Number of the Verse, and like a miserable Grecian misreads the Words of his Author, and like a miserable Logician, first supposes by a good Inclination, that the sprinkling of Blood mentioned in the 14th. is one of the Baptisms mentioned in the 10th. and then argues very pertly, but very inconclusively, from it. And this is the fate of the First Arguments he advances for a thing in which he is so confident, as to say, they are irrefragable; and as clear as any Proposition in Euclid: Fr. Ep. p. 5. a Book I have good reason to believe he never saw, since he so scurvily disgraces it, by comparing his proofs, with the Theorems of that celebrated Mathematician. But Mr. Malleus is sick of this question, Ibid. p. 6. (and I dare say his Reader is as sick of his Proofs) and therefore he proceeds with great solemnity to advance Three New Paradoxes. He tells you Mr. Keith, with great assurance that John the Baptist and St. Peter too, Declare they Plunged not when they Baptised. Not in express Terms sure—? No, no, but by good consequence. Pray let's see it good Mr. Malleus. Why, St. Luke in his 3d Chap. and 16th Verse, introduces John the Baptist, saying, I Baptise you with Water, and not in the Water, for the Preposition is omitted. p. 4. O miserable Grecian! done't you know what every Schoolboy knows, that an Ellipsis of the Preposition does not alter the sense of the Phrase? Mat. 3.6. Mat. 3.11. Mark 1.5, 8. Joh. 1.26, 31, 33, Joh. 3.23. And don't you see it expressed in the Parallel, and other places cited in the Margin? But Mr. Malleus says, 'tis not English to say, I Plunge you with Water: Agreed; but who translates it so besides himself? 'tis a bad Translation, and 'tis his own. But what then shall determine the sense of the Word Baptise? Why let Mr. Malleus for once consult his Greek Testament for the three Texts in the Margin, Mat. 3.6, and 16. Joh. 3.23. where John is said to Baptise in Jordan, and in Enon, because there was much Water, or many Waters— and Christ who was Baptised by John in Jordan, is said expressly to have went up out of the Water, so that the manner of John's Baptism is plainly specified in these passages. And if You Mr. Keith should ask your Worthy Informer Mr. Malleus, in what manner did John the Baptist Baptism Christ and others who came to him? Or how were they Baptised? Mr. Malleus must answer if he'll answer with the Text, That Christ and the Disciples of John were Baptised in Jordan; unless he chooses to use his beloved Translation, and say they were Baptised with Jordan. But Mr. Malleus urges, p. 8. That John so Baptised with Water, as Christ on the Day of Pentecost did with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire; and he makes a great Pother with this Argument; and lays about him as fiercely as Don Quixote did at the Windmill. Well, admit it be so; than it must follow, that John the Baptist's Disciples were totally immersed, and covered with the Water in Jordan, for the Apostles were totally immerced or covered with the Miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the Fire appeared only in the form of Tongues; but all the Room was filled with a mighty rushing Wind, Acts 2. and all the Persons present therein, were as entirely Baptised with, or in this mighty rushing Wind, as they had been, in in case all the Room had been filled with Water; and thus John, as our Author's Words are, so Baptised with Water, as Christ did with the Holy Ghost and with Fire; that is, by Immersion. But the Text does neither say, nor imply, that Christ's Baptism with the Holy Ghost must be like John's Baptism with Water; 'tis only said, I Baptise you with Water, and he shall, etc. The Word Baptise in this Second Clause has left its Native Sense, and if the Metaphorical and Borrowed Sense be somewhat Catachrestical; 'tis no new thing, but an ordinary Scheme of Speech, used in every Leaf of the Bible. This Word is used in another Allusive Sense, in Matth. 20.22. and Mark. 10.38. and is thus Paraphrazed by the Assemblies; shall you be able to endure the overflowings of Afflictions, which like deep Water-floods must compass me about? Which Paraphraze by the way, in the Assemblies Annotations is not only true, but a further Proof, that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even when used Metaphorically, has all its Allusive Sense from the very Notion of Immersion. But Mr. Malleus insists upon it, pag. 9 That the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles, and that they were not immersed, or plunged into or under that Divine Effusion; and as he expresses it, the Water in John's Baptism was applied to the Person, and not the Person to the Water: So than all the force of his Argument amounts to this, that John's Baptism with Water was like the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; but that was by the Effusion, or pouring of it out upon the Apostles, and therefore John's Baptism must be by the Effusion or pouring out of Water on his Disciples. Now to this, you may give Mr. Malleus this plain Answer, First, That there is no necessity for an entire resemblance of a Real and Metaphorical Baptism in all Circumstances as has been hinted before, and he will not be able to prove his Major, that the one must in all respects be like the other: 'Tis sufficient if there were any likeness, to justify such a Form of Speech, as Baptising with the Holy Ghost; whether the Parties were first put into the rushing Wind, or the mighty rushing Wind was miraculously brought upon 'em on every side; in either case the Parties were totally covered and surrounded with the Element. But still Mr. Malleus will reply, That the pouring out the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, was Baptising the Apostles with the Holy Ghost; and by consequence that pouring Water upon the Party Baptised, is a proper manner of Baptism. Now, suppose this should be granted Mr. Malleus, That the Real and Metaphorical Baptism are in all respects Analogous, than it must follow according to his own Judgement: That, as the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Parties Baptised at Pentecost, in so plentiful a manner, so as the Symbol of the Divine Presence, viz. the mighty rushing Wind, entirely surrounded 'em, and touched 'em in all parts, and on every side: So the Party's to be Baptised with Water, aught to have it poured out upon 'em, with equal plenty, that the Element may touch every part of the Body; and not only so, but it must be so poured upon the Parties Baptised, as to touch all parts at the same time, as the rushing Wind which filled the Room where the Apostles met, was at the same time present, and Contiguous to every part of their Bodies. It cannot be denied, I say, if he will have the manner of Baptism by Water, to be specified and determined by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but that the Water must be poured on the Party Baptised with a kind of Inundation, so as the Water may stay and abide upon the whole Body, in every part at the same time. And if this will necessarily follow; What will become of his Mode of Baptism, by applying or sprinkling the Water on certain Parts only? That certainly will not be Analogous to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, which he contends it ought to be. So that for the Strength of his Arguments, Mr. Malleus might well have forborn his insulting: but the weakness of his Understanding would not give him leave to practise the least piece of Discretion. In the 11. Pag. he tells you, That it being admitted by many Paedobaptists that St. John plunged his Disciples; this is accounted the strongest effort for the Baptists. Pray Mr. Keith ask him, who told him so? Not one Baptist of common sense can be of that Opinion; for the strongest Effort or Proof for plunging, if there be any, must be found in the Words of the Institution, Vide Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity. pt. 1. Chap. 10. and the History of the Corresponding Practice of the Apostolic Age, and not in the Concessions of some Learned Ingenuous Men; which Concessions at best, are but Argumentum ad bominem, or a probable Topick; whereas an Argument from the Institution and Primitive Practice. recited in the Gospels, or the Acts has that certainty, and undoubted Evidence, which obliged those Learned Men to make the very Concessions he mentions. In Page 13. He puts a Question in very Bungling Burlesque. What were John's and Peter's Arms and Legs made of? We may with good reason, and more modesty than he uses, in treating those Venerable Apostolic Men; ask him, what were the coarse and uncouth Materials of his Understanding? But why do you ask that Mr. Malleus? Why because so many were Baptised: Friendly Epist. p. 13. All Jerusalem, all Judea, all the Regions round about Jordan— Three Thousand by St. Peter in one Day, and they were Baptised in their , which is not likely, or Naked, which is not Modest, for what Provision had they made to change their ? And this is the Substance of Mr. Malleus his Remarks in that Page, abating the childish and silly Wittisms— But pray Mr. Malleus, why such adinn with the universal [All] do you design to make Mr. Keith believe; that the whole City of Jerusalem and the whole Country of Judea, and all the People living round about Jordan, were Baptised by St. John in Person? I dare say you cannot impose such a sense upon the Text, nor Mr. Keith: and the Text does not say what you make it say, Mat. 3.5. in the place you refer to, There's not All * 'Tis observable that Cardinal Bellarmine was in the same mistake as appears. Tom. 2. de Bapt. Lib. 1. Cap. 22. Jerusalem to be found. But admit it had been said, all Jerusalem; as it is said all Judea, and all the Nighbourhood of Jordan; has Mr. Malleus ever seen any Interpreter that afferts, we must by the universal [All,] understand every Body that lived in those places? And has he forgotten the noted distinctiof an Universal in genera singulorum, and in singula generum? which his Authors so often abuse in their Comments, on that famous Text, God would have all men be saved. They will immediately tell him, that [All] must signify in very many passages, some of all Ranks and Orders, and not every individual Person, as it is plain it does in the case before us; for St. Matthew uses a term of abatement in the 7th Verse, saying, that John observed many of the Pharisees and Saducees coming to his Baptism, 'tis neither said all of 'em, nor most of 'em; but many or divers of 'em; and they that came, Joh. 1.19. & 29. were sent by such of the Jews who did not come to his Baptism; to inquire what John was doing, and with what design: and many of the many that came, for aught appears to the contrary, or can be proved by Mr. Malleus, or any of his Learned London Divines, were never Baptised by John. So that at last his all Jerusalem and all Judea, etc. must with the consent of the Context Mr. Malleus his Learned Friends and Annotators, and with the Approbation to of his London Divines, In his Title Page. signify some Persons; or, if he will divers Persons dwelling in Jerusalem, and in all parts of Judea, and in the Neighbourhood of Jordan came to St. John; Mat. 3.6. and were, as St. Matthew says expressly, Baptised by John in Jordan, Mark 1.5. and St. Mark more expressly in the River Jordan, and that John who stayed some time in the Wilderness of Judea, should during his stay Baptise either in Person or by his substitutes divers of the Jews; is no such Instance of his wonderful strength, nor so unlikely as Mr. Malleus endeavours to represent it. But Mr. Malleus thinks it very improbable, Friendly Epist. p. 13. That St. Peter should Baptise 3000 Converts in one day, especially considering (as his Learned Phrase is,) his antecedent and consequent work. This observation is a fresh instance of Mr. Malleus' negligent and inconsiderate humour; and demonstrates very evidently, that he cannot read hardly a single Text with any tolerable attention to the sense of it. For, in the 2d of the Acts at the 41st Verse, 'tis said; that about Three Thousand Souls were added to the Church that day, i. e. on the day St. Peter Preached? and 'tis said, That they who gladly received the Word, were Baptised, and some of them might, nay all of 'em might be Baptised that day, but 'tis not said, that all, or any of 'em were Baptised on that very day; nor is it said, that one single Convert of the 3000 was Baptised by St. Peter in Person. With how little Reason then, or rather with how great contrariety to Reason must Mr. Malleus assert? that the 3000, were all Baptised, and not only so, but all Baptised by St. Peter, and all in one day. Another Instance of Mr. Malleus his great care to be in the wrong, for he crowds three untruths into one single Proposition. However to gratify him, we will suppose it had been expressly said in the terms of Mr. Malleus, that 3000 were Baptised by St. Peter in one day. Does he not rememSt. John's distinction, between Christ Baptising in Person, and Christ Baptising by his Disciples; Joh. 3.22. compared with 4.1, 2. for St. John had expressly said, ch. 3. v. 22. and ch. 4. v. 1. that Our Saviour Baptised Disciples; and yet in the very next Verse he assures us that Christ himself i. e. Christ in Person did not, but his Disciples Baptised ' 'em. And if the Disciples were so ready to execute their Master's Orders in Baptising Converts, we may with good reason conclude, that had it been necessary to Baptise St. Peter's numerous Conversion all in one day: St. Peter could not have wanted the assistance of the whole Apostolic College, and many other Christian Fathers, who were all then at Jerusalem. Well then, upon the whole I think it may be admitted, That St. John's and St. Peter's manner of Baptising, their Converts is not attended with any Difficulties, on account of the Number said, or supposed to be Baptised by 'em; the only Objection that still remains unsatisfied, is to this purpose, Friendly Epist. p. 12. the Parties to be Baptised were altogether unprovided for this Solemnity, having no change of Raiment, and no Cheering Liquors at hand for their use. I pray Mr. Malleus, How do you know that? Because 'tis not mentioned: That's a Nonsequitur with a Witness; for either these conveniencies must have been Necessary on such an Occasion to the Parties who were to be Baptised or not: If they were, undoubtedly they had 'em ready for use, tho' the brevity of the Divine Historian in such Narrations as these, is a good reason why a wise Man should not expect to find it in the History: But if such a Provision was altogether needless in that Country, as every Body that is acquainted with the Climate, and the Habits of those Eastern Countries must know; then I hope 'twill be granted to be altogether absurd for one to urge the improbality of Baptising by Immersion: because the Baptised were unprovided with some things, for which they had no occasion, or at least were not necessary to ' 'em. But Mr. Malleus thinks it very indecent, to Baptise without the , and very unsafe to be Baptised in 'em, unless they are changed. As to that indecent manner of Baptism, if he means of them who were Stripped quite Naked, he knows not when, where, and by whom it was ever practised or allowed; much less asserted and vindicated, tho' it being so immodest a Practice, makes one wonder Mr. Malleus of all Men should be an Enemy to it, who is so great lover of Indeceneys and Rudenesses in his Style and Behaviour. And for the hazard, he supposes they must run, by being Baptised in their : He is altogether mistaken if he thinks it be so; in those warmer Climates, where Bathing in their light and lose Garments is very frequently practised: And in these Northern colder Regions our prudence directs us to use such reasonable Precaution, in that Religious Solemnity, as may prevent any inconveniencies from Attending the Baptised, and him that Administers it. But after all, If Mr. Malleus thinks these Little Difficultys, and Groundless Objections are strong enough to disprove Express Matters of Fact, * Matth. 3.16. Acts 8.39. Joh. 3.23. 2 Kin. 5.14. The 70. Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Pasor Transtates thus, Immersit se Naeman Jordane septies. Recorded in the Holy Scriptures; he may, if he be not wise enough to Quit it, enjoy his beloved Opinion; yet let him consider, Chald. Paraph. intinxit se in Jordene. French Translat. & se plongea au Jordain par sept fois— Dutch Translat. end dopte sich in de Jordane seven mael. if this his Rule of confuting be admitted, as certain, it will be no difficult task upon the same Grounds, to confute divers Passages of Sacred History. Mr. Malleus has but one thing more that has the Face of an Argument, which after some confused Tittle Tattle, and Malicious Banter, he stumbles upon in his 17th. Page, Friendly Epistle, p. 19 and immediately falls into one of his fits of Indignation; and then we hear no more of it, till the 19th. when he ushers it in with a great deal of Ceremony, and tells you this (noble) Argument, as he would have it esteemed, was the result of his free Thought; and tho' some ill natured People might be apt unkindly to suspect he had stolen the Observation from a late Writer, yet he assures you, and you may take his Word if you please, this Criticism is really the Product of his Profound Meditations; and the Notion, he so much values himself upon, is this: That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed signifies either to plunge or dip; but for the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that has never such a Signification, but signifies other ways of Washing, exclusive of dipping or plunging: And for this bold Assertion he advances (but very coolly) Two considerable Reasons: One is, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Derivative, and the Other, that not One Passage of Scripture can be named, where it signifies Dipping or Plunging. Now as these are Two very daring Assertions, advanced with very great Confidence, by Mr. Malleus against all Ancient and Modern Interpreters, Lexicographers and Critics; it gives the Reader a fair and convincing Account of his unparallelled Effrontery: And by this we might have guessed that he dwells pretty near the English Versailles in moorfield's; for what else but the Temper and Qualifications of the Fellows of that College could have prevailed upon him, to advance a Proposition so grossly and notoriously untrue? But to examine his Reasons, I must ask him, Did ever any Grammarian Ancient or Modern tell him, that Derivatives for being Derivatives lose some of the Sense of their Primitives? This had been a fine Story indeed, had any of 'em been so silly as Mr. Malleus is, to believe it; let him but examine, if he can, his Scapula or Constantine or Martinius, and see if he does not meet with many, Ay, and a great many too, of the Derivatives in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that are so far from lessening, that they intent the Signification of their Primitives. Yet to give him all the Advantage in a desperate Cause that he can desire, I am content for the present it shall be admitted, to be the Property of Verbs in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are Derivatives, to abate somewhat of the Sense of their Primitives. Nay, he shall have another Favour granted him, tho' he deserves none, that the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself, in Dispute is not in some cases excepted from this New Rule in Grammar lately Enacted by him, and his Anonimous Author; and let him make the best of these Concessions: For, unless he can prove that it does signify, and must signify any other thing than to wash, dip, 2 Kings 5.14. Mat. 3, 6, and 16. Mark 1.5, and 8. John 3.23. Acts 8.38. Rom. 6.4. Colos. 2.12. Plunge or Immerse the Body of the Baptised in Water, so as the whole Body for a time remains under the Water, and entirely covered by it; as it's plain it does and must signify in the Passages I refer him to in the Margin, I don't see what service he will do himself by this New Fangled Spurious Rule in Grammar. Every body knows that some words in all Languages have a pretty steady lasting sense, and are Symbols for one, or a few precise Ideas. And 'tis as well known, That there are other words which by a Promiscuous usage are applied to a great variety of Senses. Now when a wise Man meets with any word of the latter sort in any approved Author, he does not Peremtorily engage and compel the Word to signify, as he would have it, and as it may have often signified elsewhere, but takes it in the Sense of his Author, or else he knows, he must be content not to understand him, which I suppose to be Mr. Malleus his choice, and no body that I know will envy him for it. The Sacred Writers ought to be treated with a peculiar Veneration; and if they fairly present their Sense to you, in certain Terms which at sometimes are ambiguous, but in the case before us, are clearly determined to a particular Sense by the Circumstances of the Story; what perverseness must it be, to impose a Sense that widely differs from what they deliver? This in good construction when 'tis knowingly done, as it must be in some very plain cases, is a taking upon us by our own Authority to establish a Scripture Canon of our own; for if the sense of Scripture which in the best sense is Scripture, be interpreted away, the Scriptures may be truly said to be lost, tho' all the Printed and Manuscript Copies should continue in being. But Mr. Mallens will have that to be the sense of this scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which he contends viz. that it never signifies to dip or plunge. To this it must be said, that 'tis very strange if it be really so, that all antiquity should be utterly mistaken in the sense of a word, by which they always apprehended they were particularly directed in the very mode of so solemn an Institution. Dr. Cave's Prim. Christ. Pr. 1. Cap. 10. What else occasioned the Universal Practice of Baptising in Ponds, Rivers, and in the Sea itself in the Three first Centuries? Tertull. de Baptismo ad Quintillam. homo in aqua demissus; & nulla est distinctio, mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo diluatur. Nec quicquam refert inter eos quo● Joannes in Jordane, Petrus in Tibure tinxit. which is mentioned by Tertullian and others, not as a late Innovation, but a constant undisputed usage. So that one may safely challenge any one instance to be produced for the different mode of Baptism during the Two first Centuries, unless we may except the Baptism of Clinics, or Persons confined to their Beds, and at the point of Death, which however was looked upon as defective for the Party so Baptised could not be admitted to Holy Orders. The Jews as their Writers assure us, were wont to Baptise their Proselytes, for some time before our Saviour; and their mode of Baptism is agreed by all Learned Men to have been by * Mersatione non profusione ag● solitum hunc ritum, indicant & vocis proprietas, & loca ad eum ritum delecta. Joh. 3.33. Act. 8.38. & allusiones, Rom. 6.3, 4. Colos. 2.12. Immersion. And if he does but consult the Synopsis Criticorum on the 6th verse of the 3d Chap. of Matt. he will find himself confuted by that Learned Gentleman that made that useful Collection, who will tell him Baptism used to be celebrated by Immersion or putting the party Baptised into the Element, and not by Profusion, or pouring the Element upon him. And further, that this appeared by the proper sense of the Word, and the places constantly chosen for that Solemnity, etc. But why do I refer him to this Gentleman? or what need have I to send him to any particular Annotator? All the Protestant and all the Popish, all the Ancient and Modern both Greek and Latin Interpreters are agreed in this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to Immerge or Dip in 3 Mat. 1 Mar. 3 John, Tertullian constantly Translates it by Tingo. 8th of the Acts, and 6 Rom. and 2 Colos. whatever it may signify elsewhere: And as all agree in that sense of the Word, so all the Ancient Eastern Churches agreed in the mode of Immersion. And as was said before, very few, if any Instances to the contrary can be produced by this miserable Grecian Mr. Malleus, or any of his Learned London Divines. But had a Man leisure to collect the Proofs from Antiquity for the Primitive usage of Baptism by Immersion, they are for Number, and evidence so many and so considerable, that the very Passages transcribed would soon grow into a pretty handsome Volume: And any Man who had just dipped into the Writings of the Fathers, or but consulted the Centuriators upon the Article of Baptism in the three or four First several Ages of Christianity, could not be so stupid as to questoin the sense they gave to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passages to which I have already referred Mr. Mallens. There was indeed, at the time of the famous first Council at Nice, 46 and 49 Canone Apostol. Concil. Tom. 1. edit. Paris. and for a good while after, a debate between the Arians and Trinitarians about Baptism, by a single and trine immersion; and one Eunomius was condemned for baptising by a single Immersion in a Council held at Constantinople: and further, this usage of baptising by a Trine Immersion was confirmed so lately as by the second Council at Ravenna. But never was it yet decreed by any Council General, Provincial, or Diocesan, that Baptism by Immersion (or plunging, as he styles it) is no lawful Baptism, Friendly Ep. p. 6. but a human and diabolical invention, a breach, a notorious breach, an intolerable breach of the 6th and 7th Commandments. Had Mr. Malleus lived in the 4th Century, he had been condemned as an Heretic without more ado, for so bold, nay so wicked and antichristian an Error: For if a Person could not scape their anathemas for asserting that one single Plunge in the Water, or Baptising by one Immersion was sufficient, and that it need not be thrice repeated, Mr. Malleus would have been Anathematised without hopes of Absolution, who is so hardy as to disown and condemn Baptising by Immersion, as unlawful. How little did the Christians of the two first Ages, who for aught appears to the contrary were generally if not all Baptised by Immersion or Dipping; how little, I say, did they dream? that one who thinks himself a very Orthodox Teacher, should arise and peremptorily Vnchristen 'em all in one sentence, tho' they were then the whole visible Church: and if this Author's opinion be true, were never lawfully baptised, but were guilty of an intolerable breach of the 6th and 7th Commandment. Friendly Ep. p. 6. Pope Gregory the 1. of that name, tho' a Pope, was so Orthodox in the point of Baptising by Immersion, that he writes a very large Epistle to one Leander his Contemporary, Bishop of Sevill; wherein Immersion and Baptism by a Trine Immersion is the subject and sense of every line: The Popes of those times had it seems some Modesty, and some Christianity; but Mr. Malleus would tempt one to think he had neither. And Pope Leo the 1. was as Orthodox in this point as Gregory his Successor; for in an Epistle of his he expounds the 4th verse of the 6th of the Romans in a sense that plainly supposes baptising by Immersion to be the allowed and general Practice of the Church; Ep. Leonis primi in Tomo Tertio Edit. Paris. Sepulturam triduanam imitatur trina demersio, & ab aquis elevatio, resurgentis est ad instar de Sepulchro— ibid. for says he the trine Immersion represents our Saviour's abiding three days in the grave; and the rising of the party Baptised out of the water, resembles his rising out of the grave. Now where had the sense of this comparison been, if there had been no such thing in being as Baptising by Immersion? And to add but one Authority more of this sort, Catechis, ad Paroch, part 2. de Baptismo.— cùm aliquis aquâ mergitur, quod diu à primis temperibus in Ecclesu● Observalum. the Council of Trent itself, As modern and heterodox as it is in most other matters, has very modestly declared her opinion in this, in a Catechism made by her order; viz. that, Baptising by Immersion or Dipping" was for a long time, from the very beginning observed in the Christian Church. But it may be Mr. Malleus has no regard to the sense and opinion of Popes and Popish Councils, and I suppose for that Reason he will not much val●● the Opinion of an Eminent Writer in the ● Church, who died in Rome, and thought it necessary to Baptise not barely by immersion, but by ●●ine immersion; Epist Gregorii Protosyncelli 30. ni fallor, Tomo Concil. Edit. Paris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and appeals for his justification to the usage of former times. However, I hope, Mr. Malleus has some esteem for the Judgement of Protestant Divines, tho' the living have no Reason to value it, if he had not: And the Sense of those Divines, is full on our side in the Matter in Debate, and point blank against Mr. Malleus: For instance, The Divines who compiled the * Cont. Magdeb. Cent. 2. ministros in aquam Baptizandos immersisse— probat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod immersionem in Aquam significat, & quoth Paulus immersiorem illam allegorice exponit. 6 Rom. 2 Colos. 5 Ephes. 3 Tit. 10 Heb. & alibi. Centuriae Magdeb. expressly say, That the Ministers Baptised by Immersion, in the Second Century; that the Greek Word signified, to Plunge or Dip, and that St. Paul in divers Passages expressly alludes to the practice of Baptising by Immersion— and a great deal more to the same purpose, in the 1st. 2d. and 3d. Volumes. And the Learned and Judicious * Calv. Inst. l. 4. C. 15. S. 19 Quanquam & ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat, & mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesiae observatum fuisse constat. Mr. Calvin, is as express in this Matter, as Words can make him, for he frankly owns, that the Word Baptise signifies to Plunge or Dip— And further assures us, for a certain Truth, that Baptising in that manner was the usage of the Ancient Church. And the Learned Casanbon, his Countryman, Casaub. Notae ad 3 Mat. commate 6t●.— Hic enim fuit baptizandi ritus ut in aquas immergerentur— quod vel ipsa vex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, declarat satis.— non esse abs quod se nonnulli disputarunt de toto corpore immergendo— ibid. was of the very same Opinion, which he freely declares in his brief Notes upon the Greek Testament, saying, That the manner of John 's Baptism, was by Immersion, and that it was not without Reason, that some Persons argued for plunging the whole Body under Water in Baptism, since the very Word has that signification. This was the Judgement of those two renowned Divines and Crities, the most considerable perhaps that France ever bred. Let us see now of what opinions our English Divines are in this point. Bishop Daevenant in his Exposition on these words in the 2d. of the Colos. [Buried with him in Baptism.] Observes, that the Persons Baptised in the ancient Church were not Sprinkled only, but Plunged into the Water. Nay, Dr. Holdsworth says more, In bis 22 Lecture. that Baptism by Immersion is still in use in some Churches, and in others that the Baptised are Plunged thrice, which is agreeable to the Ancient usage. Dr. Sparrow, late Bishop of Norwich, p. 260. and p. 262— in his Rationale assures us, that Baptism in the first times was performed in Fountains and Rivers, and the Apostles Baptised in such places. And perhaps there's not one Divine of the Church of England to be named, so illiterate and rash as Mr. Malleus; Vide Bp. Salisb. Expol. of the 28th Art. but one and all of them, who have occasion to give their opinion in this Subject, admit Baptising by Immersion to have been the primitive practice. And the Church of England itself directs her Ministers to observe it in some cases, as appears by the Rubric in the Form of Baptising Infants. So that every one of her Divines when he declares his Assent and Consent to the truth and use of her Liturgy, Rub. in the form of pub. Bapt. it they shall certity him [the Priest] that the 〈◊〉 may well end●re ●, he shall dip ●● in the Water discreetly. at the same time professes thus much at least, that Baptism by Immersion is practicable and valid in certain cases, and is by no means to be rejected as unlawful, and as a notorious breach of the 6th and 7th Commandments. F. Ep. p. 19 I will name but one Authority more, and have reserved that for the last, because Mr. Malleus, 'tis probable, will rather be concluded by it, than by all I have already referred him to: And the Person I mean, is the Learned Mr. Pool, the Author of the S●●●psis Criticorum; who with the candour of a Gentleman and sincerity of a Divine, freely declares himself in favour of the Antiquity of Baptising by Immersion or Dipping, P. 21. of this Discourse. in the passage I referred Mr. Malleus to before, viz. in his Collection upon the 3d Verse of the 6th Chapter of St. Matthew: But he confirms his Opinion by citations from other Learned Men, and proceeds further to give his Reader the sense of Maldonate, a considerable Annotator, Syn. Crit. in 3 Mat. Erat Ablutio 〈◊〉 qui in Ecclesiam Judae●rum admittebartur viz. totius corporis in 〈◊〉, et it a fuit admissus Jetbie. and adds, that the Proselytes admitted into the Jewish Church, were baptised, or as he words it, had their whole Bodies Immersed or Dipped. The Talmud, it seems, under the Title de Repudio, declares, that the Jews were initiated or entered into Covenant with God the same way; according to the sense of two very Learned Men, Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot, in the places I refer my Reader to in the Margin. Selden de Syn. l. 1. c. 3. Horae Heb. in 3 Mat. 6. But Mr. Pool does not barely acknowledge the Antiquity of Baptising by Dipping or Immersion, but thought fit to declare, ex abundanti, that the custom of pouring water on the party baptised, or sprinkling with Water did but lately prevail in the Christian Church. Pool in 1000 supra citato Serius ●liquanto in valuisse mos perfundendisive aspergendi. I think it may with good reason be supposed, if not fully proved, that whilst Baptisteries, or places built and set apart for Baptism, were made so large as to receive not only the whole Body immersed or dipped, but several Persons and both Sexes in distinct apartments, at the same time, Durantus de ritibus Eccl. l. 1. c. 19 as 'tis certain they were; for Durandus mentions some, the Ruins whereof, were shown in his time at Pisa, Florence, Bononia and Parma. I say, whilst these Baptisteries were in use, Immersion, without doubt continued to be the ordinary mode of Baptising. Nay these Baptisteries were so capacious that some used to bury their dead within their Walls, 14. Can. Concil. Autisiodoren. which was expressly forbid by a Council held in the Year 578. It began indeed to be a Question about the middle of the third Century, whether Baptism by Aspersion might not be lawful and sufficient, without a strict observance of the former practice of Baptising by Immersion: And St. Cyprian, S. Cypr. Op. 76. Ep. ad Magnum who flourished about that time, has this very point under debate: By which enquiry 'tis as evident, as any thing can be; that Baptising by aspersion or sprinkling was then not an ordinary but an uncommon and rare practice; and the Novelty of it, was the reason for which some did scruple to admit it; and not only so, but made it a Question, Cent. Magd. in 3. Cent. de Bapt. whether the parties who were so baptised, were truly and properly Christians. How different then the Sentiments and practice of the best and purest Ages were from the Opinion of Trepidantium Mallens, I think does in some measure appear by this brief account I have given. What was it then could tempt this daring Epistle-Writer to repeat the Insolent Challenge of of his Anonimous Author? Viz. to produce one place in Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to Plunge. Of whatever Party the Gentleman be, who first made the Challenge, he may upon Public Notice given who he is, have all his own Dictionaries, Historians, and Commentators ready to answer his Challenge. And since Mr. Mallens pertly appears for the Gentleman's Second, Friendly Ep. p. 20. but wisely resolves not to be concluded by his Authors, (for he cares not what they say:) Having armed himself with so much Sufficiency and Obstinacy as to reject the most convincing Arguments from all other Persons but St. John himself, he may set his heart at rest, St. John will have nothing to do with him, that Excellent Person was well enough understood by all his Followers; and so was St. Peter too; and their Followers took care to Propagate the Doctrine they taught 'em, and the usages they left 'em, but particularly the mode of Baptising by Immersion; insomuch that it continued, upon the matter, an Invariable and Universal Practice for two or three Centuries succesively, as those very Learned Men acknowledge, who for better Reasons, than Mr. Malleus ever thought on, justify and practise a different Mode in Baptism. I have now Sir considered the arguing part of Mr. Malleus his Epistle to you, and am ready to blame myself for attempting to confute a Pamphlet, which in every Page confutes itself, and has, I make no question been slighted by you upon the first reading: It may be expected I should take some notice of his Scandalous Reflections, defaming Stories, and pitiful Witticisms which he makes sport with in every Page; but that's a Task sit for no body, but one of his own Kidney and Complexion. He himself is the fittest Person to answer that part of his Epistle; to write a satire or Panegyric upon his own Writings; and if he does it, I am sure either of 'em will amount to the very same Lampoon. You find scattered up and down in every Page the Flowers of his Rhetoric, and his Compliments, such, as for instance, Purblind Brethren— Paper-headed Men— read their Scribble, and learn their Chatt. (a considerable Phrase borrowed from Old Mother Clito) You'll find him in the 2d Page very Comically, and much like a Pedant, Schooling his Masters the Reverend Assembly of Divines, with an Objection which he says, is Ignorantly, Unlearnedly, and Foolishly urged; and immediately he runs riot into his beloved Moods and Tenses. And in the very next Page, he comes to his good nature again, and then the very same Persons, are Unanswerable Vrgers, Great Worthies and Eagle-eyd-Men at Controversy, that knock a Dispute in the head, while you say what's this. In the 7th and 8th Pages You have his most Learned Observations, with which his affected skill in the Greek has furnished him. And here you must take him, (if you can be so kind,) for a considerable Critic, or else you'll very much disappoint him in his expectation. In the 10th Page You are all of a sudden alarmed with his Discourse of the Canon mounted up and beginning to roar, P. 10. and I know not what: which would put one in expectation of some News from Livonia. But he immediately disappoints you by telling you a Tale of a Tub and himself. P. 11. Once upon a time I lived in a Town, etc. And in his 15th Page he falls foul, without any provocation given, Dr. R. Mr. T. upon Two Gentlemen, who value his Reproaches above his good Opinion, and would have been very sensible of the Scandal of his Commendation; as, I make no question, those Gentlemen are, whom he names in his 20th Page, and is mighty desirous as if they had nothing else to do, to have the credit of being Answered by one of ' 'em. After this comes on an uninterrupted medley of Idle Stories; and by the Texture it appears, every thing that came to hand, was made a part of his dull Epistle to you Mr. Keith, that a Man has very strong presumptions to believe Mr. Malleus to be that very Butcher which he mentions in the 25th Page, whom his very kind Neighbour the Vintner had subdued with the Fruit of the Vine, and made his Pen outrun his Wits. Thus, Sir, for the respect I bear to Truth and your Person, both which I am sure, are very much injured by this scurrilous bantering Epistle-Writer; I have briefly exposed his Reasons and his Rhetoric; if it be pardondble, to give his way of Writing and Arguing those venerable Names. And upon the whole I think 'tis evident, that his Style, his Logic, and his Confidence are all of a piece, and all without Precedent, exactly calculated for the Meridian of moorfield's: And had he done himself Justice, he had dated his Letter from one of the apartments in the College de gens insensez in his Neighbourhood; and then he had saved you the trouble of reading his Epistle, and me the trouble of making these Remarks. I am Sir. FINIS. ERRATA. Page 5. l. 25. r. perpetuum, p. 6. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ADVERTISEMENT. THE Considerations of Drexelius upon Death, in Three Parts. First, Considerations upon Sickness and Death, for such as are in Health. 2. Various Thoughts upon Death, for all the Circumstances of Sick People. 3. The Divine Art of Dying Well; or a Dying Person's Preparations for the other Life: Being Directions, Meditations, and Prayers, suited to that last and greatest Occasion of Life. Never before in English, now Translated by a Fellow of the Royal Society. Sold by H. Walwyn at the Three Legs in the Poultry next the Old-Jury, where you may also have Drexelius' Considerations on Eternity. A Complete System of Grammar English and Latin; wherein that most excellent Art is plainly, fully, and distinctly Taught, and practically managed through every part; in a Method which renders it easy to all Capacities. Dedicated to the Duke of Gloucester. Price 1 s. Sold by H. Walwyn. A Brief Exposition of the Church-Catechism, with Proofs from Scriptures. By the Right Reverend Dr. John Williams, Lord Bishop of Chichester. Edition 9 Price 6 d. The Whole Duty of Man, put into familiar Verse; for the greater Pleasure and Benefit of the (Young) Reader. Price bound 6 d.