i3|PTi /i'Sff ■'%; JfiC \ exec- i?<-JJ as equally miftaken and ignorant in every thing elfe ; though, at tlie fame time, it is not pofTible for us to afient to any truth of importance, with*- out believing thofe who differ from us to be in the wrong- and in fom.e meafure guilty of an abfurdity. But fo mightily defirous as Mr. May (^ appears to be to baniih ill-nature, in every fhape^ from the regions of controverfy anddifpute -, who .would not imagine that he himielf (poor harm- lefs man !) is all g^ntleneis and candor, and that no iiach thinof as a rough or an ill-natured word could ever fall from his inoffenfive pen ? He is, -however, fo fiir from this, that^ on the contrary, the very mildeft and the tendered title he can .'beflow, I will not fay on Dr. GilL, but on the ^Anti-pisdobaptifbs in general, is that of watay- ■bigots and Cbriftian Phmifees. Nay, that he may diiplay our infignificance in the moft difgraceful and mofb mortifying terms, we are commanded not to trouble the church of Chriji^ and defpife our Cbriftian brethren,. What ! can we no longer vindicate our ientiments, and defend what wc ■believe to be the truth, without being branded as common difturbers ? or will Mr. Mayo tell the world, that we are not entitled to the fame liberty of confcience, and the larue ftcedom of thought ( 5 ) thought as other men ? Perhaps he thmks that we are ftrenuous about a trifle. We do not think it a trifle •, becaufe immerfion is no cir- cumfl:ance, but the very adl of baptizing. But, if it is a trifle, is it not a trifle as much on one fide as tlie other ? Let him learn then to be more moderate himfelf, before he cenfures the zeal of his brethren. But naked argument will not fatisfy him. No, truly, he muK aaci rail- ing to controverfy, and, like the famous Dr. Bujby^ oi fogging Memory^ woula rain c;,!!- pel us to learn the kflbn which he. hath didated, and quietly fubmit to his infl:ru6tions, wheuier. we are willing to do fo or not. We may there- fore fuppofe that his whole defign in m.iirepre- fenting the Do(5i:or as a fnappifli and an ill- tongued bigot, was merely to palliate his own ill-nature, and open a vent for that rufliing tor- rent of abufe in which he hath drenched and overwhelmed, and as it were immerfed his Bap- tiil brethren. O Mayo^ Mciyo^ what a noble artifice is this ! who would not rejoice to have fuch a crafty advocate as thou art I But to proceed in our remarks on our author's cunning and addrefs, he hath Imartly told us, that the Doctor's expofition of his text was douhtlefs ad rem^ that is, it was nothing to the purpofe. Why fo ? becaufe, truly, he excluded the Ten Commandinents or moral law, as not particularly intended in the paflage he preached from. Nay, if Mr. Mayo\ charitable m emery hath not deceived him, he exprelsly told his hearers, that the commiandments are not bind-' ing on Chrift's difciples. * But the Dodor him- felf, who doubtlefs knows his own fentiments, * p. 5. • B 3 8n the moral law from love to God, I fubmit to it becaiife I believe that the God whom I love was the audior of it. But how can I believe this, and not believe, at the fame time, that it is m_y duty to fubmit to it ? Your charge, however, is aftually falfe. For the Doctor hath exprefsly rnentioned duty as well as love, and mentioned it in the very fame fentence. Vv^hat elfe can be the meaning of thofe words in which he hath told us, as before quoted, tbat the 'Ten Commandments are the ccmmands cf God, and to he ohferved by Ch/iftians ? You have no occafion, therefore, to cbnRime your time in lamenting the corruption of the Doftor and his friends, as if they thought that Chrifi: came into the world to fet them free trom the obligation, or commanding influence cf the law of God. It would be more to your credit and advantage to employ yourfelf, either in improving your own head, or in mending your own temper, or in praying to God to re- form them both : for, to fpeak the truth, and deal plainly v/ith y ;u, (laynian-Uke) you muil be very ignorant, or very captious, ox boih to-, geiher, Yo\| < 9 ) You hive farther condemned the Do61:or foi his faying that, among the commandments re-» ferred to in his text, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper are the chief aftdprincipaV^, Why? Becaufe rrom " thence you have inferred, that he hath exalted external rites and mitward ordinances above th^ precepts of the ynoral law. But have you forgot what you have fo lately told us, that the Dodioi* Jlath excluded the Ten Commandments, or moral law, as not intended in the pafTage h# -preached from ? How, then, could he fmk thelc^ below external and merely pofitive inftiiutions, when they are entirely out of the quellion, and wholly dillinfb form the commands he was fpeak* ing of? One would think, however, that a gofpel-minifter, as we will in charity ilippole ycil to be, fhould not have fpoktn fo flightingly of fofpel-ordinances : — ordinances which are the iftinguifhing badges of our profefllcn as the followers, of Chrill, the cement of Chriitiait union and brotherly love, and the public tokens of our gratitude to the bell of friends, and our obedience to the beft of mailers | But the Doclor, you tell us, hath contra- dicted himfelf, and that the contradiclion is fa plain and glaring, that he hath wrote it as it' were with a fun-heam '\. But in- what hath he contradidled himfelf ? Why, in Mr. SmitFsi funeral fermon, he hath exprefly acknowledged that love to God and love to our neighbour are the fum of the mxoral law, v/hich was given by Mofes \ and, in his late difcourfe, he hath like^ wife owned J that the commandments of faith gtnd love are nianifeilly intended in the text 5 * P. 8. 'j- P. :c, u, I (After a little ti your help.) Jnd yet, as you obferve, he fays that the nw/'al law is not intended. In anfwer to this, let m^ ©illy afk you, whether faith in Chrift, and love to our Fellow-chriitians, confidered merely as Jlich, or as dillinguilhed from other men, (for that is xht hvt which the apoftle hath fpoken of) are really included or comprized in the Tea CommandmejQts or not ? If you fay they are, you will find but few or none of the fame opi- nion : and if they are not, what is become of the con tradK lion you have fo haftily boafted of ? I am afraid it will iall upon yourfelf •, for if faith in Chrift and Chrittian love are, according to your own account, the proper commands intended in the text, ai7d neither the one nor the other are included in the law of Mofes, it will certainly folio w that the law of Mo/es is not defigned by the apoftie. As to eternal jujlification^ which, with all your boafted candor and impartiality, you have gene- roufly lugged into your ludicrous pamphlet by the neck and ftioulders *, you have not a head for that controverly ; as I could eafjly convince you, if it would not lead rne toj tar from che fubjed before me. But wherefore, in the name of cornmon {^n^t^ have you mentioned a doc- trine, which is as little concerned wich the or- dinance of Baptifm as is your ftale and thread- bare pun of eternal mnfenje^ which phrafe is nonfenfe itfelf, with real proof and folid argu- ment ? I can deviie no other reafon for it, but a fixed and a determined refolution to link the chara6ler of the Do6lor as, much as poflible, be^ fore you ventured upon the controverfy ; an4 ^o prejudice the reader againft an opponent, * P. II, 12, 15, 14, whom C " ) ivhom you was afraid to encounter upon fair and equal terms. Your drift, then, may be juilly exprefled in the toUowing fyliogifm : 'The chiefs if not the whole credit ef Antifado-^ hapifyn^ depends upon the credit and infallibility of its great champicn Br. Gill j But Dr. Gill is an advocate for eternal nonfenfe^ nnd therefore capable of the greatefl abfurdities ; Ergo, gentle Readers, Antipadebaptifm is eternal nonfenfcy and one of the greatejt abfurdities in the world. O rare Henry Mayo ! who would have thought that a year or two, fpent at an academy, could ever ha/e improved and refined an hcneji mecha- nic * into luch an accomphihed Ibphiit ? Veniy, friend, thou haft thoroughly purged thy brain with the powder of Hellebore, and may'ft now l^x. up for a fe-:ond Clcanthc ^ ! but our author is ^ highly difpleafed with the Doctor, becaufe, truly,( \n his fermon, or (to adopt one of Mr. Mayd's elegancies) in his preachment^ he hath enlarged upon only one of the precepts or command- ments intended in his text -(- : for that Baptifm is one of them, muft be readily granted \ becaufe no body can deny it to be a commandment of Chrift. We might well fuppofe from hence that, in Mr. Mayo's opinion, the text of fcrip- ture which a man preacheth from, Ihould at all times be the very foundation and epitome of his whole difcourfe •, and that it may never be employed, upon any account, as an occafional introdudion to a particular fubjed :— ^otherwife, we muft regard what he hath laid as an empty iind an unmeaning fneer. I might add, that it * It is pity but he had alwavs remained fuch. i P. 8. ' difcovers C 12 > ffifcovcrs a difpofition remarkably captious, "(I had almoft faid an inward confcioufnefs of the weaknefs of his caiife) thus to throw the argu- ment, — not entirely on the ftrength and number of the proofs, but on the propriety or impro- priety of the text by which the Dodor hath introduced it. If this is not plain and bare-faced cavilling, I am ignorant what is fo. But I fiiaii Jiere content myfelf with tranfcribing the Dodlor's own apology, as a fufEcient anfwer to Mr. Mayo*s difingenuous criticifm ; " Let the Command- ** ments, fays he, be what' they may, which are *' chiefly intended in the text •, yet, fince Water- *^ baptifm is a commandment of God, and al-» *' lov/ed to be fuch, and the reft of the com- ** mandments mentioned are not denied to be, •* nor excluded from being the commandments *' of God; there can be no impropriety in ^' treating on the commandment of Baptifm ** pardcularly and fingly from this pafTage of *^ fcripture." See the note in page the 8th. But our chriftian-hearted author is not fatisfied with barely expofmg the preacher and the D. D. but muft like wife trifle with Mr. GiWs chara6ter ias a religious mayi. " If we may judge, fays he*, *' from Dr. Gi//'s writings, and believe fame^s <•' trumpet^"* — what then t " v/hy, fome of the *' moral commandments are certainly grievous *' to him ; as. Humility^ Charity^ love the bro- " therhood^ follow peace "ucith all men^ blefs and *' cwrfe nct^ mgtirning for fin^ mortifying pajficn^ " ^c, i^c." This is bad indeed ! for one would naturally imagine from hence, that poor DoUor Gill is as haughty, dogmatical, avari-. xious, inhuman, peevilhj malicious, and repro- bate X ?3 ) t)atea man as any is ! Alas ! how true is tW old faying, that we fhall get nothing but dirt by contending with dirty people !— but, omitting the flagrant and the well-known injury whicl^ Mr. Mayo hath hereby offered to the Do^lor'^ charader ; what in the world can be more im- pertinent than to mingle perfonal abufe and pri- vate (lander with theological debates ? Really, kind reader, in a good caufe, there is no occa- fion to have recourie to calumny and defamatioa. Truth and reafon can never need the aililtancc of (lander : they will, they muft difdain it, and look upon it not as any real fupport, but as 9, Hioft unworthy artifice. If, therefore, we were difpofed to make the beft we could of Mr. Mayors kind refledions, we ihould repre- lent them as a tacit confefTion, that mere argu- >jment is too weak to ferve his purpofe *, and that he was obliged to fix the attention of the public x>n the fuppofed infirmities of his antagonifl, that iie might prevent them, ifpoiTible, from looking too narrowly into the merits of his own caufe :- for he certainly hugged himfelf in the thought ,that, after he had expofed and difgraced his. opponent as much as h^ was able, the reader, . already prejudiced againfl him, would refpe(?t -even the fmallell appearances of argument as folid proofs and evident demonflrations. This, •it muft be owned, was extremely artful : but I hope that, after the caution I have now given, tlie reader will be conftantly upon his guard, and not fufFer himfelf to be impofed upon. I ■fhall, therefore, enter upon the con trove rfy im- -mediately, without any farther introduction 5 •and I flatter myfelf that I (hall be found to be as fair and impartial in my examinauon of Mr, ( 14 ) Mr. May oh performance, as I would defire tht public to be of my own. I fliall begin with letter the fourth^ in which our author (that his letters might be all of a piece) hath charitably informed us, by way of prelude, that the Doctor was a little non-compos^ (he might as well have faid a little crack-brained) when he delivered his printed fermon. But why fo fevere at the firft onfet ? becaufe, truly, the Doctor afferted in the pulpit, — what ? — that the cnly fenie which hath been given to the word ^aTfli^cjf by learned men^ is to dip or plunge? Mr. Mayo hath plainly intimated that he alTerted this. But, if we may take the Dodtor's word for it, who may be fuppofed, in charity, to have premeditated what he then delivered, and, con- fequently, to be as capable of remembering what he faid as any of his hearers, he only aflerted that all learned men kn jw that the word primarily fignifies t: dtp or plunge. He might, therefore, without any inconfiitence or feif- contradiction, very fafely allow, as he hath done, that in a fecondary or confequential ienfe it may alfo fignify to wajh. Aye •, but the reafon he gives for it, fays Mr. Mayo^ is becaufe what is dipped is wajhed: and this very reaion mars all again. Why fo ? Becauie, truiy, at this rate, whenever Bocnli^^o fig- nifics to wafb^ it muit fignify to wafh by dipping. This is a hard cafe indeed \ but it is Mr. Mayo\ biifincis, and not mine, to prove the contrary. }->e hath told us, however, that in fome of the ir 'lances or fcrtcences which are referred to by tiie lexicographers, to prove that (ia.7fii{(o fignifies to wi'jlj^ dipping h entirely excluded. I wifh he had been kind enough to produce thefe inilances. \i he had not been fearful. that he would have btVii detected in a miltake, and perhaps a wilful one (15) ione too, I can fcarcely perfuade niyfelf that he Would have been fo bafhful as not to mention a^ 'few of them. But, tofpeakthe truth, it is th« -prevailing cuftom now-a-days to wafli by dippings 'or by covering a thing with water •, and I luppofe "it was the fame formerly : for who hath evet •dreamt of waihing anything, (in the plain and literal fenfe of the word) by Iprinkling water iipon it drop after drop ? We may, therefore, ■^fefume that, at all adventures, i3a7r1.(^ muft fig- 'nify to cover with water : for that which the Water doth not affed, can never properly be faid to be waihed. Accordingly, in i Pet, iii. •21. the ordinance of Baptifm, as it flands op- pofed to its fpiritual import, is called a putting away of the filth oftheflejh : an exprelTion which manifeftly includes too much to be taken in by ^mere fprinkling. Well, therefore, might the Do6tor call upon his opponent to produce a Tingle lexicographer of real note, who renders 'tu7r%^co either to pour or fpr inkle. Mr. Mayo^ iif- deed, hath made a bold pulh, and bravely told us that he could name all whom the Do6lor hath ■mentioned, as for himfelf. Upon fecond thoughts, however, he hath not ventured to •name one of them \ but hath quoted an author -whom the Dodbor hath not mentioned. Mr.Leigh^ fays he, hath expreisly declared, in his Critica Sacra, that ^utPi^cj may occafionally fignify to Jprinkle. But, for what reafon did Mr. Leigh make fuch a declaration ? doubtlefs, for the very fame v/hich hath difpofed this his humble pupil and admirer to receive the hint with fo much cordial reverence : namely, to ufe our author's v/ords, becaufe both the one and the other are not only PEdobaptifts, but were fprinkled alfo. It fhould feem, however, that Dr, Gill hath not Ihewa OS} Ikewn his people fair play. He hath perfuade^ |hem (poor credulQus wretches !) that all the learned are on his ^nd their ficje, and that np lexicographer of note hath yet afTerted tha^ fa7fu(u fignifies to fpr inkle ^ — when,— behold !-— f |he critical and judicious Leigh hath exprefsly jtpld us that it does ! — critical and judicious, beyond dilpute, and a lexicographer of the firfl: pote, becaufe the Dpdor hath now and then rondefcended to look into him Rifum teneatis §frdci * : A drudging helpmate to bunghng the- 4)logifts5 and an orthodox prompter to half- educated academics, is dubbed a critic of the £rft magnitude ! Really, good Sir, if you have ■not Jhot above your antagonift, as you feem to be atraid you haye, you have at leaft over-fliot ■ypurfelf. f ' A mountain labors, but a moufe comes forth.^* But v/hen you mentioned Leigh^ why was you Ti6t ingenuous enough to tell the truth, and in- form the public that he exprefsly fays, " th^t f*' the native and the proper meaning of the *' word /SaTT^Jo;, is to dip into water ^ or to plunge ." under water ^ John iii. 22, 23. Matt. iii. 16. Ads viii. '}^%P And if you had done this, you would have a<5led like a man of principle, and could never afterwards have had the meannefs to run to him for Ihelter, by telling us that, ac- cording to his opinion, the word fometimes infers cfpergere But, after all, it woulcj be no miracle, if we ikould meet v/ith other compilers of lexicons, * Mr. Mgyo hath it, Rifum teneatis Amice ; which, bad as it is, is tull as good Latin as his in fuiuro in page the 4th. Query, " Did Mr. Mayo underiland Z«/;>z when he jeft the academy, as well as he doc; r.o\v ?'' . befidea ( 17 ) befides tlie renowned Mr. Leigh^ to pafs their word for it, that /5«7r^{w may occafionally fignify to fprinkle \ becaufe moll, if not all of them, were themfelves fo baptized \ and it is no great difficulty for a man to perfuade himfelf that a thing is juft, which he hath once fubmitted to in practice. In this cafe, the merefl Ihadow of probability will carry the force of a conclufive argument. But that we may fee with our own eyes^ ani judge for curfehes^ and acf the part of cmftflent froteJiantSy (as our author hath well advifed) ; let us no longer pay our homage to every paltry infignificant lexicographer, but examine by feripture-tefimonyy for which the Dodtor, it feems, hath fome remains of fendnefs^ whether Baptifm and fprinkling arc really the fame thing or not. And, here, let every reader judge for himfelf Let him be prejudiced neither for Dr. Gill-i nor againft him ; but let him a6t the part of a man, — a fcnfiblc, impartial man. With Mr. Mayo's pamphlet in one hand, and mine in the other, let him carefully compare the arguments on both fides, and then deter- mine which of us hath the beft of it upon the whole, — the Divine^ or theZ^y?^^;^ : for this and this only is the way to judge aright. The firft pafTage, then, which is recom- mended to our attention, is Heh. ix. lo*. where we read of divers wafjings or haptifmSy {^iup^oi^ ^a,7rlKry.oi^) which wcre obfcrvcd under the Jewilh difpcnfation. To thefe the author of txhc fix letters hath referred the fprinklings of blood, which the apoftk hath mentioned in the 13th,' 15th, and 2 ill verfes j and from thence he in- * P. zz, C fers. ( i8 ) fers, that the word ^«7rl»cr^o5 fignlfies a fprinklingi But, with the leave of this prince of critics, (who flatters himfelf that he hath refledled a little more light on the controverfy than many of his prcdeceiTors) I fhall take the liberty to obferve^ that the fprinkling of blood and of the water of purification was not a part of the Baptifms or wafhings here referred to, but only a preparatory circumftance. For the purification of the unclean pcrfon was always compleated, — how ? by fprinkling blood or water upon him ? No •, by bathing his body, and wafhing his cloaths, on the feventh day, as the grand and the finifhing part of the ceremony. See Nmnb. xix. 19. where it is plain that the unclean perfon himfelf is in- tended, and not the prieft : becaufe, in verfc the 2 1 ft, which regards the latter, he is only commanded to waih his cloaths. Nor is it rea- fonable to fuppofe of the prieft, that he fhould contrail fuch a load of uncleannefs, only by pu- rifying another^ as to need a greater and a more plentiful wafhing or purification himfelf ^ than the unclean perfon. As to the purification of the leper, as it is particularly related in Lev. xiv. (the chapter referred to by our author) we find, in ver. 8,9. that it was neceflary he ftiould walli his cloaths and and bathe his flelh in water. The cafe was the fame as to the feparation of the Levites, in Numb. viii. 7. for the fprinkling of the water of purifying was merely previous or preparatoij to their ftiaving and to the bathing of their flelh and wafliing their cloaths, which is alfo mentioned in the fame verfe. If I was not afraid that the bare mention of a Rabbi, or a Jewifh author, would offend the delicacy of our 7naji of 7iiodern tafle^ I might here adm.onifh him that thefe religious wafliings, or bathings, are conftantly C 19 ) conftantly reprefented by the Jewifh writers as performed by dipping or immerfton. But the Doctor's anfwer to Mr. Peter Clarke will furnifh him with inftances fufficient. I fhall therefore yield) for the prefent, to his violent naufea againft the teftimony of uninfpired Hebrews i and, as a proof that ^tz7flt^[xoq neither doth nor can • fignify a fprinkling^ I Ihall only refer him to Mark vii. 4, 8. where mention is made of the baptijmS Cf cups and platters^ {^x'Trlta-i^y; 7ro7»}§tw* xal Ijs-wy.) Pray, good Sir^ what do you underiland by thefe baptifms ? the a6lual wajhing of cups and platters, by putting them into tvater^ or only the fprinkUng of cups and platters ? If you Ihould fix upon the latter, it would certainly be a droll conceit, and not unworthy of fuch a fuper-comic genius as Mr. Maya's. But, excepting Heb. vi. 2. and ix. 10. thefe are the only paf- fages in which the word occurs throughout the whole New Teftament. I might farther enquire^, wherefore the fufferings of the Redeemer are cal- led ^a9r1.^, a Baptifr/i ? Is it merely becaufe he was poured upon or fprinkled^ or as if fprinkled with forrow ; or not rather becaufe he was plunged in and overwhelmed with forrow ? Com- pare the allufion with Pfalm Ixis. i, 2. and it will be eafy to difcover the anfwer which you ought to give me. The next palTage our author refers to is Dan. iv. 23, 25 *. where he tells us that^«7*j-cy1ai, tinlefs they are fprinkled. This would have anfwered his purpofe abundantly better than telling us, as he hath done, that the fcriptural mode of wajhing hands was not to dip them into waier^ but ( 26) but to pour water upon them! For whatever difference there might be in other refpeds, be- tween the ancients and the moderns, I cannot perfuade myfelf, from the inftance he hath men- tioned, (2 Kings iii. 11.) that the former made a point of pouring v/ater upon their hands, when- ever they had a mind to wafh them \ becaufe it is not faid that Elijha's pouring water upon the hands of Elijah^ was done with a defign to wafh his mailer's hands. On the contrary, feveral interpreters are of opinion, that fome miracle is intended, which followed the a6lion of pouring water; an action which, for that reafon, gave Elifia a great chara6ler, and was afterwards an- nexed to his name by way of epithet. — As to the queftion which our author hath propofed, — *' 'Ujhat fcripture-warrant had the Jews for doing *' C:S they did^ or even for waflnng their hands F'* — (which, one would think, might be lawfully done w^ithout an exprefs command for it) it is abfolutely impertinent, and a fair fqueak for the life of his argument. For we are not contend- ing whether the Jews did right or wrong, but whether immerfion or fprinkling is moft properly fignified by the word /3a7r^^w. And as to what he firther afferts, that fprinkling the water of feparation was the only purification, or cleanling, required by the Almighty either for unclean pcrfons, or unclean things, let him only turn to Lev. xiii. 54. Lev. xiv, 8, 47. Lev. xv. pajfim. Numb. xix. 7, .19. and Deut. xxiii. 10, 11. and fairly acknowledge his miilake ; when I read x\\^ alfertion, I could fcarcely believe my eyes ! We have, however, already obferved, that all the fprinklings he hath mentioned, were only previous and preparatory to the bathing the fledi iind wafliing the garments. He mull, therefore, fupport ( 27 ) fupport his argument by more conclufive proofs than he hath yet done, before the Chriftian Pha- rifees^ as he hath charitably filled his Baptijl bre- thren, will think themfelves obHged to fubmit . to him. We are not, indeed, fo ftubborn as to difpute the quantity of water to a fingle quart ; nor do we think it necefTary to run to a river, when a private baptiftery will ferve as well. But as we judge it necelTary to partake of the bread and the wine, in the Lord's fupper, in a luiiicient quantity to anfwer the end of that ordinance •, fo we Ihall ilill adhere to immerficn^ as the only j)roper and the only fcriptural mode of Baptiliri, — till Mr. MayO:, or fome other perfon m his room, of lefs vanity and greater learning, can prove, as well as fay, that we are miilaken ^atry bigots. But the favourite and the darling argument of this formidable fcourge of Antipadohaptifin, is deduced from Mat. iii. 1 1 . * Tremble, then, every advocate of the plunging fyilem ; and thou, O Gill, who waft once, it feems, the fear- lefs champion of the kingdom of dipping, retire in tmie from the conflict. For thy adverfary is now preparing himfelf to ftrike the fatal blow. But what notable proof then hath he now produced ? Why, John, he tells us, in the pafiage above- mentioned, informed his auditors that one was coming, who would baptize them with the Holy Ghoft and with fire. But what are we to gather from thence ? Truly, we are to gather nothing lefs, than that /9a7rl»^a; muft here figniiy to fprinkle, exclujive of all other fenfes •, — or, in otlier words, that the apoftles were fprinkkd, or as it were, or as if fprinkkd with the Holy Ghoft and with fire ! And, indeed, what can be plainer ? fince • P. 25. our ( 28 ) our author himfelf hath informed us, in the very- next fentence, that, in the fcripture, the Bap- tifm of the Holy Gholl is uniformly fpoken of,-— how ? — by fpr inkling ? no \ bilt by being poured cut upon^ and by an un5fion or anointing. What ! — Are we, then, inilantly to relinquifh the ufe of our fenfes, and believe, upon Mr. Mayors ipfe dixit ^ that pouring and anointing are the very felf-fame thing as fprinkling ? Alas ! — what a fatal blunder was this for a mafier of arts! There is no neceflity here, either to fet Henry againfl Mayo^ or Mayo againil Henry •, for, like a wife-acre as you are, you have already done it to our hands, and mofi felonioujly flabhed yourfelf. Learn, then, gentle Sir, infutun *, (as we fay) to avoid contradi6tions in your own writings, before you charge them upon other people. But how can the man prove, from the words referred to, that /?«7r]»^a/ does not fignify to dip ? becaufe, truly, in A6ls the 2d, where the de- fcent of the Holy Ghofl is particularly defcribed, there is nothing fmiilar to immerfion. But, to convince him that he is miilaken, let us firfl: confider the Baptifn itfelf^ and then its outward emblem. The baptifm itfelf, then, was neither more nor Icfs than a miraculous and an actual donation or application of the gifts and influences of the fpirit to the minds and hearts of the apo- ftles : and we are informed that thefe gifts, and * I forgot to obferye before, that infuturum, and not ift futuroy is the proper phrafe vvh^n we fpeak of the time t» come, and mean to fiy/cr the future. But Mr. Mayo, we may fuppofe, hath committed this and the folcecifm already mentioned, not through ignorance, but m.ere artifice, and hath fpouted a little bad Latin, for the fame reafon that a iine beau will fometimes fpell incorreftly— -namely, to iliew his reader that he is no pedant, parti-r ( 29 ) particularly the ^ft of languages, were applied or communicated, not fparingly and by fmall degrees, but very copioufly and plentifully. For the apoftles are faid to have been Jilled with the Holy Ghoft, or, as it were, abforbed and fwal- lowed up in his furrounding and pervading in- fluences. Let me alk Mr. Mayo^ then, which of the two is moft analogous to fuch a plentiful communication of the fpirit — mere fprinkUjtg with water drop after drop^ or overwhelming and immerfmg in water ? If he is not immerfed and overwhelmed in bigotry^ he muft give his opinion in favor of the latter, and allow that nothing can have lefs refemblance to the Baptifm of the Spirit, than the poor unhappy mode for which he hath ftruggled fo hard. But we Ihall proceed, in the next place, to the outw^ard emblem^ which was a fudden found from heaven, as of a mighty rufhing wind, which filled all the houfe where the apoftles were fitting. This found, or wind, was probably produced by the fluctuation of the at firft invifible lire, which, after filling the room, and, together' with the prefence of the Holy Spirit, furrounding and overwhehning all who were in it was contra6led into the term of cloven tongues, and (as a fenfible token to the apoftles that the promife of their being bap- tized in the Holy Ghoft and in fire had been adually compleated) became vifible to the naked eye. Mr. Mayo^ perhaps, may cenfure the hint as a novel glofs ; it is, however, fo extremely natural and obvious, that no reafonable man can defpife it. I may add that, in reality, it is not a novel glofs, becaufe one of the Greek fathers, upon the place, hath faid the fame thing, and obferved that " the whole houfe was filled v/ith *•[ Are, though invifible, as a pool is filled with water.'* (30) water." Yet, ancient as it is, we may well fup^ pofe that fuch an interpretation as this will re* ceive but a very cold welcome from infant- Ibrinklers ♦, becaufe it bears too hard, abundantly too hard, on their darling mode of Baptifm. But our author hath chiefly harped upon the turn of the expreflion. He thinks it would be whimfical and unnatural to talk of dipping tvith^ or (as he ought to have faid) in the Holy Ghoft and in fire. To this I might anfwer by afking him in return,— whether it would really found more corre6lIy and harmonioufly, to talk of fprinkling with the Holy Ghoft and with fire? But I ihall only refer him to the note in page 28. of the Dodor's fermon, where he is told that the phrafe of J//>p/«g"/;? j^r^is no unufual one, both in Jewijh and Greek authors, as hath been fhewn in the Doctor's expofition of the place, and of A6ls ii. 3. Let him prove, then, if he hath learning enough to do fo, that Dr. Gill hath allerted a falfhood ; or, if he cannot prove this, let him referve his raillery till he can employ it v/ith a better grace and to better purpofe. As to the pouring forth the Holy Ghoft upon believers, (an exp'refTion which is not unfrequent in the Bible) it remains to be proved that this is ever ufed as an allufion to the mode of Baptifm ; for, till this can be diftini^lly proved, we might as well aifert that, becaufe the apoftles, in the chapter referred to, are laid to have been filled with the Holy. Ghofl, therefore to be baptized muft mean to ht filled with water. It would therefore be abundantly more rational to confider the expreflion as a mere metcphor^ taken from the cufliom of watering gardens and fields to forward the growth of plants and herbs •, for in the whole account of the Baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, there i3 ■( 30 IS not a fingle circumftance upon record which hath any analogy either to fprinkllng or pouring. As to the un^ion or anointing with the Holy Ghoft, — this, though a fcripture-expreffion, is equally foreign to the prefent argument. If Mr. Mayo indeed can gravely aflert and really prove, that it is not abfolute nonfenfe to talk of anointing with water ; I may then, perhaps, agree with him that this expreffion may allude to Water-baptifm. But, till he can do this, I muit beg leave to think otherwife, and regard the hint as a very fanciful notion, which is much better^ adapted to vindicate the undlions and the baptis- mal chrifms of the Papifts^ than the fprinklings of the Froteftmt P^edobaptifts, Vv^e proceed, in the next place, to the mii*a- culous pafTage of the Ifraelites through the Red Sea * ; an argument which, if loberiy examined, will prove the reverfe of what our author intends. He fuppofes^ indeed, that the Ifraeli'tes were bap- tized in the cloudy by its difliliing drops of rain upon them, and in the fea^ by the fpray of the waves agitated by the ftrong wind that blew, aS they were paiTing through its channel. But we are not obliged to admit every hypothefis with which our author, or any other perfon may pleafe to prefent us ; for we are all rational crea- tures, and as fuch have an undoubted right ta ftippofe for ourfelves. In the firft place, then, let us attend to the apoftle himfelf. 'o* -r^almq r.au* Our fathers^ fays he, were all under the cloudy and they all paffed through thefea. Thus the fa6l is related. The inference immediately follows. * P. 26, 27, 28, They ( 30 ney were all baptized to Mofes^ (/. e. as the vifi- ble and temporary head of the Jewifh hierarchy, and the type of Chrift the head of the church) not hy^ but in the cloud and in the fea. Neither the rain, nor the fpray of the waves are fo much as mentioned. But it is highly probable that both the one and the other would have been noticed, if the type had been taken from either of them. We may therefore prefume that the apoftle's meaning was this, 'viz. that, as a per- fon in Baptifm is entirely furrounded and covered with water, fo the Ifraelites^ with the cloud over their heads, and the fea on each fide of them, were in appearance thus baptized or immerfed. This interpretation is fo very natural and ob- vious, that it hath been adopted by a modern Paedobaptill of no inconfiderable reputation, both in the polite and the learned world. His words are as follows * : "We mud not conclude *' our notes on this chapter (Exod. xiv.) with- •* out mentioning the obfervation of St. Paul, '' who confiders this whole tranfadlion as a type *' or fenfiblereprefentation of Baptifm, iCor, x. 2. *' Indeed, as thofe who were plunged in water, in '' order to Baptifm, were covered and furrounded *' therewith, fo the Ifraelites^ covered with the '' cloud, and having the fea heaped up on their *' right and left hand, rofe from this abyfs as *' from a kind of Baptifm." The learned Grotius is of the fame opinion ; and the fcripture evi- dently fupports it : for, as the Dodlor hath ob- ferved, the waves of the fea are reprefented, not as agitated and toffed about, but as Handing unmoved like a wall on each fide of the Ifraelites : the Jloodsy fays the inipired writer in Exod. xv. 8. * Dodd on Exod xiv. ult, Jicfd .( 33 ) jisod upright as an heap^ and the depths were con* gealed in the heart of the fea. But let us, in the next place, examine into the circumftances of the Itory. The Ifraelites then, according to Exo- dus xii. 3*^, 38. amounted to 600,000 fighting men, befides women and children, and a mixed multitude which went up with them, and flocks and herds, and very much cattle. It is farther obfervable that, numerous as they were, they muft all of them have pafTed through the fea, (which was between 10 and 20 miles acrofs) in the fpace of a few hours -, and it is likewife highly probable that the Egyptians^ who were doubtlefs a mighty hofl, and whofe chariots and horfes muft have occupied a large extent of ground, had entered the fea before the Ifraelites could all have gained the oppofite lliore^ — for, by the morning-watch, we find them in the mid- dle of the channel. See Exod. xiv. 23, 24. Now, from all thefe circumllances compared toge- ther, it is fufficiently plain, that the Ifraelites muft have crofled the lea, not as if they were filing off through a narrow pafs, but in a very large extenfive front \ and, confequently, the paffage made for them could not have been like a long narrow ftreet, fuch as CheapfJe or the Strand^ but a wide opening fever al miles in breadth. If the cafe had been otherwile, efpecially upoii fuch a clayey weedy bottom as we are informed by naturalifts that of the Red Sea was ; inftead of only a few hours, they could not have com- pleated their paffage (without a fecond and a very extraordinary miracle) under three or four days, or a week ; and perhaps not at all ; for the bottom would foon have been torn up, by the men and cattle at the head of the column, fo as to render it impaffable to all the reft. D Befides, ( 34 ) Befides, it is fcarcely credible that the Egyptiani themielves, wonderfully hardened as they were, could have been ignorant of the fatal danger they were running into, if they had not had room enough to purllie the Hebrews with all their chariots and their cavalry at full liberty. It might be added, as a farther confirmation of what has been faid, that in Pfalm cvi. 9. tha Red or V/eedy Sea, (Mare Algofum) as it is tranflated by the learned Junius and T'remelliuSy is compared, when dried up, to a defer I or wil- dernefs j an expreffion which conveys the idea, not of a long narrow lane, but of a very large extenfive opening, of fufficient breadth for the free and commodious paffage pf a numerous people. From hence, therefore, we may infer, that , Mr. M2)Vs fuppofition, that 'the Ifraelites were ail of them fprinkled with the fpray of the fea, is not only an improbable, but a very wild and a very whimftcal imagination. He may, perhaps object, that if the fpray could not reach fo far as the main hody^ it might however be blown upon a few who marched on the flanks near the water. But even this is very unhkely ; becaufe we may fuppofe that they would natu- rally have taken advantage from the breadth of the paffage, to avoid fuch a manifeft inconve- nience. Befides, as the Ifraelites were marching from weft to eaft, the eaft-vv^ind muft have blown not acrcfs tlie paffage, but only through it ; and confequently it muft have carried the fpray ra- ther from the- Ifraelites than upon them, and borne away that from each fide of them, in the fame manner as it did the waters -, otherwife, it muft have blown the waters one way and the fpray another •, which would be a very ridiculous fuppofition. But if we fliould grant, (out of pity ( 25 > pity to our bewildered author) that the ipray might fail upon a few of the Ifraelites^ I am afraid it would be of little fervice to him ^ for it is not faid that zfew of the Ifraelites^ but that €ill of them v^^nt baptized in the fea. If there- fore, to be baptized in the fea^ neither doth nor can fignify, in the prefent inftance, to htfprinkled ivith the fpray of the fea ; — (for it would be mad work indeed to fuppofe that the wind fhould blow the waves one way and the Ipray another) — why may we not infer, with equal reafon, that to be baptized in the cloud, doth not really im- ply that the IJraelites were fprinkled with rain defcending from it, but only that they were covered with it over head in the fame manner as they were furrounded by the fea on each fide. I will not fay indeed with Mr. Mayo^ that they v/ere a dually baptized, (in the proper and ufual fenfe of the word) becaufe I am not yet con- vinced that a type and an antitype are the very felf-fame thing. But I can fay, with fufEcient propriety, that they were a^lually encompafTed, furrounded, or enveloped with the cloud and the fea together, which is all the apoftie can mean ; and that their being fo was actually a type of Baptifm by immerfion ; or, in other words, that it is a5iually true that the children of Ifrael were typically baptized, or (if Mr. Mayo will have it fo) that they were as ifimmerfed in water. Paul himielf hath mentioned the whole affair as a type, in verfe the 6th. Thefe things, fays he, were Tt;?ro» v^^m. Types of ourfelves — that is, of profefling Chriftians. But, to proceed in the argument, what in the world can be more im- probable than that the Ifraelites fliould be fo feverely incommoded in their pallage, as our very humane and judicious author hath repre- D 2i fented (36) fcnted them ? One would think it troublefome enough in realbn, to have had the Egyptians (their mortal enemies) at their heels, and an oozy incumbered path under their feet. But Mr. Mayo does not feem to be fatisfied with this, nor to think that the Ifraelites would have dif- fered enough. No ! poor ill-fated wretches ! he hath, over and above, condemned them (like an Egyptian tafk-mafter as he is) to be plenti- fully Ibaked with the rain from heaven, and in- fulted every moment by the fpray of the waves ! Really, good Sir, according to your account of the matter, they had a far more cheerlefs journey of it than the convert Eunuch ; though we fliould fuppofe the latter to have been repeat- edly plunged into the water, and unprovided with change of raiment -, for, befides fevcral other inconveniencies, if they were not immerfed ipfo fa^o^ yet truly they could fcarcely have failed of being altogether as wet. As to Pfalm Ixviii. lo. I cannot difcern, from the connection, that it is really applicable to the prefent ftory, or that it affords even the fmalleft fhadow of a proof that the Ifraelites were be^ friended in their retreat with a plentiful rain. Nor will the name of a Watts^ or of a Locke^ (who, by the bye, have neither of them exprefly {ifferted that the Ijraelites were fprinkled with the fpray of the fca, any more than the great Dr, Goodwin*)- neither thcfe, I fay, nor ftill more venerable names than thefe, fliall fo far over-awe me, as to make me truckle to what I think ta be abfolutely improbable, I will not, in- * Locke and Goodwin, heave not fo much as mentioned the fpray ; and the others have only fpoken of it, as of a doubtful thing, with a perhaps and a might he ; none of Ihera have ajjcrted it, which is all the Do^or hath faid, deed. ( 37 ) deed, be fo much but of humour w\th them, as to condemn their writings, (as this Rhadamanthus of the learned world hath done by the Dolor's) either to be buried in duft and cobwebs in the corner of a fhelf, or to be employed in the deli- cate fervices of the privy-houfe. For though I am a layman, and perhaps he may think a very pert one too, no pretences whatfoever fhall ex- tort from me fuch very indecent and very unbe- coming language, when I am fpeaking (as he was) of my elders and my betters. I Ihall, how- ever, take the liberty to follow our letter- writer's own advice ; and, I hope, without con- temning another man's abilities, read the fcrip- tures, and judge for myfelf, and not blindly pin my faith on the fuperior learning and capacity of any fallible mortal. If our author had done the fame, he would never have vaunted himfelf in fuch an unguarded manner in page the 27th ; nor have made fuch a fool of the Dodor only for his talking of baptizing in the cloudy or in the fea. For if it is true that this is monftroujly ridi-- culous^ and very ahfurd^ —I am forry to fay it, it is a ridiculous abfurdity which Paul himfelf hath moll unluckily flumbled upon ! He might likewife have as eafily fpared his idle fneer, that the Dodlor muft certainly have meant the Egyptians^ inftcad of the Ifraelites^ as the perfons properly baptized or covered with the fea. For the Ifraelites^ and not the Egyptians^ were the proper types of the Chriilian church ^ and he may, therefore, aiTure himfelf, that we believe the drowning ojf the former to be altogether as little connected with Chriilian Baptifm, as are the fliff and aukward witticifms of Mr. Mayo with fterling fenfe and folid argument. P 3 As ( 3S ) As to his remarks on the prepofition El<^ *^ they are neither fo accurate nor fo curious as he feems to perfuade himfelf. It is true, indeed, as he obferves, that ^u frequently figniiies with ; and that, not only in the New Teftament, but in other authors. He ought, however, to', have recollected that it can never fignify with in a local fenfe. It is likewife true that tv frequently fignifies at. But even in this cafe, where the fenfe is entirely locals a little reflection mufb con- vince him that at is generally, if not always, equivalent to in., Thus, for inftance, when we fay that a man lives at Rome^ or at Paris^ or at any other place, we certainly mean thai: he lives ht B^ome^ or in Paris^ and not barely in the neighbourhood of thofe cities. If, therefore, we pretend that to be baptized ^v loe^ocva, muft really mean ' to be baptized with Jordan^ or with the river ^ or as it were, at the river ^ (as Mr. Mayo woi:'d fain interpret it) we ihall certainly exprefs ourfeives far more uncouthly and more unnaturally than if we were to fay that the anoftles were baptized in the Hdy Gheft and in fire \ and no- thing but z. grievous ft rait could have prompted our author to coin fuch out-of-the-way phrafes. But to fatisfy him that iv, in a local fenfe, and connefced with water, may very properly fignify f;^ or into^ let me refer him to Matt: viii. 32. Mark i. 16. and v. 13. Luke xvii. 6. A6ls vii. Q^^, Rev. xvi. 3. and xviii. 19. where it v/ill puzzle him, (though he is not, we may fappofe, a novice^ but a flurdy feafoned veteran in the Greek Language) to tranflate it otherv/ife. What he hath advanced concerning the phraie isjuKkcc vl'cP.<:cfy as denotinjg only different Jlreajns or * P. 2(]» t P. 29. different ( 39 ) different colleBions of water ^ is, in , my opinion, equally frivolous. For, in Rev. xvii. i. the very fame exprelTion is made ufe of to fignify the Euphrates^ a large river which ran . through 'Babylon, the fcripture-embiem of Ro'me pagan and Rome papal. We are likewife told that Enon was near Salim, which is generally fuppofed to have been either upon or near the banks of Jordan. But why our author fhcRild imagine, as he does, that John made choice of iuch a place, for the mere convenience of fucli of his hearers as mi^ht chance to be thirfty, and not witb any refpeh to Baptifin, I am wholly at a lofs to conceive. What 1 is it faid that he preached at Enon, becaufe it was furniilied with plcnuy of water ? If it had been thus exprefTed, Mr. Mayo's hypothefis would have been very reafonable. But inilead of this it is exprefsly faid that he baptized there on, account of the water ; which mull cer^ tainly intimate, if there is any meaning in v/ords, that his principal and his only viev/ in going to 'Enqn, rather than any where elfe, was to have water in fumcient plenty for Baptifm. Befides, Xhofe who attended upon John\ mlniftry might yeiy.eafily have provided themfelves with all neceiTaries in the towii of ^allm, and other neighbouring places. We may add, that if he had baptized either hj fprinkling or pouring, he might liave found water enough, in the towns and^ villages, to ferve his purpofe, and afford refreiliment to his hearers, without going to the banks of a river. We might alfo enquire, if his regard was to the miere accommodation of his hearers, why he did not choofe a place v/hich would have furniihed food for themfelves, and provender for their cattle, as v/ell as water for tlieir drink ? But the truth of the matter is, if it D 4 once ( 40 ) once comes to be allowed, that any confiderable quantity of water was required by John for the purpofe of Baptifm, it would give us a fhrewd and a very untoward fufpicion, that it was his cuftom to baptize by immerfion. No wonder, therefore, that Mr. Mayo^ and his brethren- fprinklers, fhould be fo mighty loth, as they are> to interpret the words in their natural fenfe ! And — (now I think of it) — what a heinous pity it is, that neither Mr. Whitefield^ nor Wef.ey^ nor any of their field-preaching followers, Ihould have fo much regard for the accommodation of their induilrious hearers, as to make it their practice alfo to hold forth on the banks of rivers ! The next inftance referred to is the Baptifm of the believing Eunuch in Ads the 8 th*. This hath been confidered and reprefented by Dr. GUI as a fufHcient proof that the primitive converts were baptized by immerfion. For we are told, in tlie common tranilation, that both Fhlli'p and the Eunuch went, not barely to the water, that is, to the fide ofit^ — but into the water ^ — («k v^O fee verfe the 38th: — and as it is particularly faid, in one of the preceding verfes, that they came to the water (htt* v^cc^) a little before, the Do6lor Iiath flattered himXelf that £i? t;^^^ is tranf- iated jufi: as it ought to be. Befides, as the Do6i:or hath elfewhere obferved -f , why fhould the fight of a confluence of water- have put tha Eunuch, as it. did, in mind of Baptifm, if it had not been ufual to adminiiler the ordinance by dipping or immerfion ^ For, confidering his rank, it is highly probable that he was provided both with wine and water, to rcfreih him on his * P. ^o, f Anfwer to CUrk, p. 89. journey; ( 41 ) journey ; becaufe thefe, when mixed, were the ufual drink of the eaftern countries. So that a fingle bottle of the water he carried with him would have ferved for fprinkling or pourings had either of thefe been the mode of Baptifm : and, by this means, he would have had no occafion to have went to the water at all, and much lefs hito it, as it is exprefsly faid he did. But Mr. Mayo hath afTured us that he did not go into the water, but only to it, and very ingenioufly proved that this fame wifeacre of a Doclor is a mere blunderbufs. " Suppofe now, fays he, *' that the Eunuch was riding in a chariot, and *' came to the water- fide." Well, then, let us fuppofe he did. " Why j if he afterwards con- " defcended to ftep out of it, and to walh his " hands, face, ^c^ What then .?— -" Why ; *' may it not htftri5fly faid that though he v/as " come to the water hefore^ yet in coming dxwn *' from the chariot he went down to the wa- *^ ter.," — (that is, we may fuppofe, to come to it again, and go an inch or two nearer to it than he was before ?) — Aye •, to be fure •, — what in. in the world can be plainer ? He went firfl: of all to the water ^ and afterwards to the water itfelf. Really, gentle reader, with a very trifling altera- tion, this ingenious and pretty fancy of our right reverend Hibernian will become a very ingenious ;and a very pretty riddle ; — " fVho w^^ it that '' went to the water^ and to the water^ 'and yet *' never went into the water P" But this is not all ; — our dreaming ideot of a Doftor never be- thought himfelf that if going into the water im- plies imrnerfton^ poor Philip muft have been dip- ped as well as the Eunuch ; and thus, inllead of one Baptifm, we fhall be hampered with two^ whereas, the apoftle mentions but ane. This is ftiarp ( 42 ) fharp work indeed ! Eut what a pity it is that fb much ingenuity as our author feems to be mafter of fhould be fo aukwardly employed. For the "^Doclor hath only tokl us that going into the water implies that iht f-crfon to he bciptized muft 'have 'been dipped or immerfed ^ becaufe, if his \vas not immerled, there could have been np 'occafion for his going into the water at all. It is true, indeed, that the operator mull have went into the water along with him ; but as he did not go there to be baptized himfelf^ but only to baptize another^ his going into the water does not imiply that he was dipped, though the c/i^^r's "doing lb will necefTai'ily iliggeil fuch an infertnce. 'Mr. M'?)'(?, however, hath doubtlefs flattered him- felf that he hath' to deal with none but/(?^/j and ignoramufes ; and,' for tliis reafon, he hath ven- tured to amufe us with a qidhhUy — an ope7i and. a barefaced quibble, in the room of an argument;. — — But he hath not done with us yet : for, tp IT ake the cafe, ifpoffible, fliil plainer, andcojv vince us, beyond difpute, that our D. D. is. a downright dunce ^ he hath farther obferved, '^ thai *' if the Eunuch re'allj'uoent into the water ^ hefdr-0 ,*' plunged in it^ he half -baptized hlmfelfr He 'means, I fuppofe, that becaufe a perfon, who 'partakes of the Lord's flipper,, ufes his own hands to put the bread and the vv^ine into his own mouth, he performs half the oiBce of the admi- niflratip/lTor that the bufmefs of the baptizer is not to put the fubje6t /^/^^tT/^/f 'ic;^/(?r, but tp carry him into ■ the ' water Ann'ofator divine ! What praifes doft thou not deferve for fuch a happy thought ! or what genius but thine could ever have enlightened- and embelliflied the pre- fent controverfy with fuch curious novelties as thefe 1 You certainjy imagined that a fimple fnccr ( 43 ) fneer would fupply the place oihalf an argument, where a compleat one is wanting •, 2indhalf 3, loaf, they fay, is better than no bread. -But vvhere^ fore is our author fo very unwilling that we fhould take the Eunuch into the water ? becaufe, truly, as we have already intimated, it would be a:whimrical conceit to fuppofe that he adually went into the water only to be fprinkkd or poured upon \ for every body will naturally imagine that, in this cale, he might better have ftaid in his chariot, and ufcd fome of the water he carried with him ; or, if that was expended, have fent one of his fervants to the brook or river to fetch ' more. But, to end the difpute at once, I fliall pnly add, that, excepting the palTage before us, fK connected with the word t;^^^ or t-^ala, is only ufed in Matt. xvii. 15. and Mark ix. 22. where it muil ftriEily and cnly fignify into, I jnight defy Mr. Mayo himfelf, with all his learn- ing, not only to prove, but even to jay to the •eohtrary. if «? vloi^^ then, fignifies into the wa- ter^ in every other pafTage where it occurs, what reafon can our author give why it lliould not fig- nify the fame in the palTage before us, unlefs it be that it would bear too hard on the caufe of fprinkling ? Or, if going into the water doth not naturally fuppofe the immerfion of the party bap- tized, why Ihould he be fo anxious to perfuade his readers (contrary to every appearance of proba- bility, and to the general fenfe of the phrafe then made ufe of) that the Eunuch only went to or mito the water, without wetting even fo much as hxsjhoe? But, to prove that »? (that is, I fuppofe, ■when connected with water) doth not ilricliy or properly fignify in or into^ he hath boaftingly referred ( 44 ) referred us to Luke vi. 12. and Mat. v. i. * where he thinks it would be ridiculous to tranf^ late £i; o^of into a mountain. A fine compliment this to the learned tranflators of our Bible, who, cither in their fenfes or out of them, have fo ren- dered it in both the inftances he hath mentioned ! Aye 5 but how very diverting would it be, ta fuppofe that a man ihould make his way through earth and ftones into the very body of a moun- tain ! True, Sir, it would be fo. But do you believe that our Savior afcenied the mountain ? You do believe it. Let me aflc you, then, whe- ther you likewife believe, that becaufe it is im- polTible to walk into the middle of a pond or river without finking into the water, it mull therefore be impoffible to go up into a mountain, or to advance into the middle of a large plain without finking into the earth ? If you do, there muft be a wonderful and a highly probable cavern in the learned receptacle of your brains. The alteration you would recommend, by rendering tK cfo- to or into a mountain, (for if you allow it to be into the mountain, as you have unwarily done in page the 31ft, you fairly give up the point) — this alteration would be far more excep- tionable than the common tranflation. For it is eafy to conceive that a perfon may go to or unto a mountain, without of c ending it, or travelling any farther than the bottrm of it. Nor is the phrafe, going up into a mountain, improper Englip •, becaufe it is neceflary to fpecify the difference between afcending the mountain, and coing only to the foot of it, and as fuch is com- riionly ufed. In the fame manner we often fay ;h.at a perfon lives in a plain, or in any particular * P. 30. county (45 ) county or tra61: of land, without fuppofing that he hath taken up his refidence in a rabbit-hole : and the phrafe is fufficiently proper, becaufe, in fad, he is furrounded with the plain or land on every fide of him. But I might prefs you ftill clofer, and urge you to prove that there is any thing ridiculous or improbable in Chriit's going up, not only into a mountain^ but even into a cave^ either in Luke vi. 12. or in Mat. v. i. You feem to be fenfible yourfelf that it might have been fo in the former cafe. For if he went up into the mountain to pray^ (for the fake of privacy, we may fuppofe) it is likely enough that he would have preferred a cave to any other place ; as was done by Elijah in mount Horeh And, as to Mat. v. i. you have certainly for- gotten that our Lord was only preaching to his difciples, who muft have made but a fmall au- dience, as is fufficiently evident from his pofliure while he was fpeaking ; for he is faid to have taught them Jit ting, Befides, the whole fermoii was particularly addrelfed to the difciples as fuch ; which would fcarcely have been the cafe, if he had been furrounded by a great con- courfe of ftrangers. Nor is it difficult to difcern from the paiTage itfelf, compared with Maffcviii. I . that he went into the mountain not to preach to the multitudes you mention, but rather to avoid them, that he might give them time to refreih, themfelves. What impropriety, then, or what inconfiftence hath your eagle-eyed fagacity dif- covered in Chrift's retiring with his little com- pany into a large cavern, or natural grotto, (as well to fcreen them from the heat of the fun, as to prevent interruption) that you Ihould exult over the Dodtor with fuch an air of triumph, and reprefent him as a whimficai and a head- flrong ( 46 ) ftrong hlgot ? In the mountains of Judea there were certainly many caves or caverns, fbme of them natural, and others, perhaps, artifici-al. It is true, indeed, that the multitudes, when they difcovered whither Chrift had withdrawn himfelf, mull fome of them have went up into the mountain after him, and found him foon enough to hear the conclufion of his fermon, and exprefs their aflonijfhment (as in chap. vii. 28, 29.) at the unufual energy of his dodrine. Upon the whole, however, it feems probable (to me at le;aft) that his audience at firfl was chiefly if not wholly compofed of his own difci- ples. For, if the multitudes attended Chrift into the mountain, what occafion was there for telling us, in chap, the 8fh, and verfe the ift, that they followed him, not xai»^a.^o>7*, while or as he was coming down again^ but y.o[lci,^ccy(i^ after he defcended^ or after his coming down ? — But, whether I am right or wrong in this particular, or, in other words, whether Chrift retired into a cave^ or only afcended the mountain^ the prepofi- tion «K both hath beeh and muft be tranflated into, in either cafe j which is all that we are obliged to prove : and there were caverns in Judea capa- ble "Sf holding many hundreds of perfons. See I Sam. xxii. i, a. and xxiv. 3. But, you have afked us, * — did not Jefus fend Peter n<; -rrtv ^oL-ha^a-n^, (Mat. xvii. 27.).? He did ; — and you " appear to be well-afTured that nq $aAa<7o-»jv cannot rationally fignify into the fea. And yet, — highly ftrange as you may think it, — this very exprefTion, excepting the paflage be- fore us, is only ufed in Mat. iv. 18. — viii. 52. — xiii. 47.— xxi. 21. Mark the v^. 13, — ix. 42, *P, 31. *-"-ix^ '( 47 ) —XI. 23-"'"'L^*^ ^^* ^- — J^'^^ ^* 7' — -* Ads xxvii.. 30, 38, 40. Rev. viii. 8. — ^xvi. 3. — xviii. 21. — and in every one of thefe inflances it hath been tranllated, and'muft necefiarily fignify into the fea. — except in Ads xxvii. 40- where £«.' is not ufed locally^ and in Rev. xvi. 3. where upon muft certainly mean, and ought to be rendered into ; becauie the contents of the angel's vial were undoubtedly poured into and not merely upon the fea. This will prove, (to make the lead of it we can, and give our author all the indulgence which the weaknefs of his caufe requires) this will prove that the general meaning of "?, in a local fenfe, is in or inta^ fourteen to one againfl to or unto. But, why may we not fuppofe that £»? ^a^a^rj-viv is here ufed in the fenfe which it fo commonly bears, and fay that Pfc'/^r ftepped firft into xtlQ Jljcal-ivate?'^ and afterwards into his boat, and then put off into the middle of the harbour ? This is neither fo improbable, nor yet fo unufual, as to deferve to be wholly difcredited. Peter was a filherman. He earned his livelihood by the trade. We may, therefore, fuppofe, that all our Savior intended, was that the next time he went into the fea to flfh, .(which was probably the fame or the next day) he Hiould look into the mouth of the nrfr fifh he caught, and take out the piece ofmicney which he would find in it, to pay their tribute; Accordingly, the palTage miight be juftly tranf- lated Tro^atSsK, ^c, " Going, or when thou goeil " into the fea, caft an hook, and take thefrft " fifh that Cometh up, &c.'' Mr. M?,v^, per- haps, may objed:, that if Peter had went ofF in his boat to fifh, he v/ould not have employed a hook, but have thrown out his net as ufual. To this I would anfwer, that he muft certainly have ufed (48 ) ufed a hook on other occafions as well as the prefent, or elfe he would fcarcely have been pro- vided with one i nor is it at all unufual for per- fons to put off in a boat or wherry, to a little diftance from the Ihore, when they have a mind to iilh with a hook. But I proceed to another inftance — Mat. xv. 24. * — where it is faid that our Lord was ^fent jij ra TT^o^oIa, &c. — " Now, fays our mafn of *' wit, fhould that be io or into the loll fheep ?'* *' To^ you reply, doubtlefs." And fo mightily is he pleafed with this wonderful and almoft miraculous difco very, that he makes himfelffure of carrying his point, and proving that tic can never fignify into^ in the cafe of /^^/^r-baptifm, *' unlefs the loft fheep had a cave in them as well *' as the mountain." Nay, that he may aflert his fuppofed vi(5lory with a good grace, he plays upon his antagonift with all the afllirance of a conqueror, and merrily adds, " that the Do6tor's *' criticifm will fuit very well with the tenet of *^ fome, and furnifh them with an invincible *' argument for tranfubftantiation, and Chrift's *' entering perfonally into them ; their ftomach ** is the cave into which he enters, by virtue of *' hoc eft corpus or hocus pocus."* BravOy friend Harry ! this is well-play'd indeed ! Ah ! Dodor, Dodtor, — how I pity thee ! For now, like a fecond Goliah^ all thy learning and impor- tance hath been (lain at once by an upftart youth ! How, then,, in the name of found criticifm, how couldft thou be fo far over-feen, as to tell the world that the meaning of £»? is fometimes intOy even — (woe betide the day when thou faidft fo) — even, when it is connefted with the heretical *P. 31. element ( 49 ) . element of water ? Surely, Sir, you had never been fo unwary, if you had but attended to the wondrous learning and abilities of this adven-. trous ftripling. But, however, it is no great matter. You muft e'en take it for your pains. For though fuch literary deceptions as yours may, like others, fucceed for a tim.e, they are generally detected and expofed at lafb by fome ingenious Non-pareil. For my part, I am highly obliged to your learned opponent. Before I had the happinefs to meet with his admirable -pamphlet, I laboured under a miftake. For I verily thought, in my heart, that the poor in- valid in John the 5th was inconfiderate enough to defire our Saviour to put him, not on th^ fide of the pool^ but into the pool-, becaufe thole novices in Greeks the tranflators of the Bible, have been v;eak enough to render «? xoXv^^^S^-a* in that manner ; — not confidering, we may flip-^ pofe, the eminent danger to whi -h an aduai dip- ping might have expcfed the poor man's life. But thanks to thy moil penetrating genius, O M^.yo^ we m.ay now be fatisfied that uc Ko^uX/7^e«»» only fignifies ad pifcinam^ to^ or unto^ or as it were at the pool. So that all the man defired v/as to be civilly laid down on terra firma^ near the Ijrink of the water. In the fa-ne mariner, when Chriil is laid to have went £;? r?;!/ ttoajv and a- Tc hoovy it doth not mean that he ventured into the city^ or ijito the temple \ but that he afled th6 wary part, and, for fear of his enemies, w^nt only within fight of thofe places. But is this, fay you, all the anfwer I am to expedl to my n; ret '^r^CocTct ? No, Sir ; I fhall return an anfv/er which will likewife ferve for your ttc ^x.a»a;-t;-p (unto righteoufnefs) in Rom. iv. 3, 5, 9. and your «^ a,\VAt?c and £»s wa^r'a? and :><; v,««? in i Thef- E falonians (50) falonians iii. 12. and all other references of the fame kind. I allow, with all my heart, that, in each of thefe inftances, the prepofition "? neither doth nor can fignify into. But what is the reafon ? Why becaufe it is not ufed in a local fenfe, or any thing like a local fenfe -, and it would be llrange indeed if ek fhould fignify in or into a place^ where no place at all is fpecified, neither immediately, nor by analogy. What you ought to have done, therefore, is this : — you fhould have proved that, when e^ is locally ufed, (for that is the fenfe of it v/hich chiefly concerns the controverfy) it generally if not conilantly figni- lies to, aty or unto, exclufive of in 2ind into. But this you can never prove : and for that reafon you have wifely declined it. For the truth is that, when locally ufed, ek generally, if not al- ways, fignifies in or into -, where it fignifies other- wife in one inllance, it fignifies thus in ten or twenty, to fpeak within compafs. Take up your Greek Teftament, (which, it may be, is your ne plus tdtra) and examine if it does not. You have, indeed, been fo very compafTionate as to allow that uc, not only fometimes, but often figni- lies into. We are highly obliged to you for your condefcenfion. But, the misfortune is, you will not acknowledge, after all, that It will bear this fenfe, in fo much as one fingie indivi- dual inllance which concerns the prefent contro- verfy. What a pity, that fuch an obliging gen- tleman as you are, fliould be fo mighty rigid^only to ferve a turn ! We have proved, however, without €\\kitxyour help, or your defire, that the prepofition eic, when locally ufed, (as it always is where it relates to Baptifm) will generally if not always fignify into. Let me advlfe you, then, for the future, to be more attentive and lefs po- fitive , ( 51 ) fitiv^ ; and, if your pamphlet Ihould oear a fecond edition, be juft enough to expunge the fentence, in which you have told us, " that «k *' lignifies unto" (that is, v/e may luppofe, in a local fenfe, and exclufive of into) " and is fo *' rendered in hundreds of places." Otherwife, you may let bigottry alone, and fpare the Do6lor as an Impoftor, till you can make it appear that you yourfelf are not a bigot to^ and a piblijloer of a dodtrine which you have not fkill to defend. I lay, which you have not Jkill to defend. For, believe me, your capacity is not llrong enough to raife the fabric of your own fame and impor- tance on the ruins of Dr. Gill and Antip^do^ baptifm •, nor have you the requifite abihties to fupporc your ambition, and fland forth as the head of a feB. Your next attack upon the Do6lor is becaufe he hath told us that Baptifm is a real reprefenta- tion of the burial and refurredtion of Jefus Chrift*, and was intended as fuch v/hen it was inilituted.- The emblem you fay is imperceptible \ ■" fo imperceptible that it can only. be dil'cerned ^' by -one or two of uncommon capacities.^^ This is true enough of fpnnkling, " For will *' any man in his fenfes fay that a ccrpfe is ■'' buried, Avhen only a little duft or eai-rh is ^' fprinkled or poured on its face ?" 1 believe not. But baptifm by immernon is a very pro- per emblem of burial. For as in burial a perfon is covered with earthy fo in baptifm he is covered with water. Here we have a real, a very lliitable, and a very eafy emblem. You cannot prove to the contrary \ and, for that reafon, you have very cunningly given us the flip=, and waved * P- 3=- E 2 off ( 52 ) ofF the argument with a fneer. But" truth cail face ridicule at all times. You cannot deny that the apoftle himfelf hath faid, and that he hath frequently repeated the exprelTion, that we are buried with Chrift in Baptifm. Doth he mean fomething ? or doth he mean nothing ? You was afraid to tell us. But if there is any mean- ing in words, he muft intend a real analogy be- tween burial and Chriftian Baptifm. If he doth not, to what purpofe is baptifm mentioned ^ And if he doth, wherein confifts the analogy ? Anfwer me fairly and ferioufly, and you muft give up the argument. You have pro- nounced the BoBor's account of this analogy a whimfical interpretation of a Jcripture-allufton, Produce a better^ and then we need not take your hare ivord for it. But you have produced none at all. If you are fo much concerned for Chri- ftianity as you pretend to be, why have you left us in the dark ^ But, to fpeak the truth, the emblem which you have inconfiderately ridiculed and derided, is lb very ftriking, that fome of your own party have been forced to allow from it, that it is probable that immerfion might have been ufed in antient times. As to your tart rebuke beftowed upon the Do6lor, becauie he hath told us, that the end of Baptifm is to repre- fent the burial and refurredion of Jefus Chrift;— I need only anfwer, that if it really is fuch a reprefentation, (a point v/hich we have already proved) it will naturally follow that it was />;- tended to be fo : — and the ufe for v/.hich any thing is intended may very properly be called the end of it. But, not to prefs upon you with too much feverity, give nie leave to afl< you, what more important or more intcrefting tranf- aflions ( 53 ) actions could Chriftian Baptifm have pointed out and reprefented, than the burial and refurre(5lion of the Chriftian Saviour ? Tranla6iions which are the glorious fources of all our prefent enjoyments, and of all our hopes of future happinels. You tell us, indeed, among other things, that the end of Baptifm was to inflru^t mankind in their guilt and defilement through fin, and in the necefTity of fandtification, and to fignify the in- fluences of the fpirit. I will not fay that you are miilaken •, but I may fafely tell you, that you cannot prove VN^hat you have faid, in the fame manner as the Doctor hath proved what he hath faid ; I mean, by fcripture-teftimony. You proceed to inform us, that the Dodor either knows, or ought to know, that (panj^-^ra;^ in Heb. vi. 4. is generally underflood to mean perfons baptized. For my part, I can fee no reafon to adopt the fentiment. It feems more natural to me to underftand it of perfons v/ho have received the fpeculative knowledge of the gofpel. Knowledge is frequently, and very pro- perly compared to light. As to the Greek and Latin fathers, they may, as you fay, for any thing I know to the contran/, fpeak of Baptifm by the word (pujna-ixoq. But is this any proof that the apoftle did fo too ? One would think, if he had, that he would have done it oftener and more exprefsly. This ufe of the word feems to be too Ihevvy and pompous to be of fuch an early date. But, granting that your nodon is right •, v/hat will you gain by it ? - Is there any analogy between enlightening and fprinkling? I am not enlightened enough to fee any. When ^ perfon is removed out of a dark place into a * P. 33. E 3 light (54 ) light place, he is inflantiy furrounded and encom^ puffed with the light. Afk any perfon of com- mon capacity, if it is not fo. But when a man is fprinkled^ he is not furr o wide d with water. You, fay, indeed, that when a perfon is immerfed.^ the water prevents the fight, and for a time makes all darknefs around him. Be it fo. But doth fprinkling water on a perfon's face wajh darknefs away from it ? I cannot think it doth. Perhaps, then, you mean to refine upon the argument, and to tell us, that as it is a man's underilanding which is enlightened, and as the feat of the un- dei-flanding is fuppofed to be in the brain, and as the brains are lodged in the head., therefore that part alone fhould be baptized. If you was adually to offer fuch a droll hint, I fhould not greatly wonder at it. It would be altogether of a piece with many other pleafantries in your pamphlet. But Chriftians are reprefented, you fay, as perfons crucified with Cbrift *. They are fo. But what follows ? Hath this any thing to do with Baptifm ? Or hath Dr. G///ever faid that it hath ^ You cannot anfwer in the affirmative. Learn, tlien, ingenuous Sir, — learn for the fu- ture to make a difference between what is argu^ ment and what is mere impertinence. If you had done this when ycu indited your pamphlet, you would i^ever have enlivened this remark, by infinuating, as you really have done, that pouring., JJjedding., and anointings are natural al- iufions to fprinkling., and valuable arguments for your favourite mode of Bjtptifm. Really, friend Mayo., inflead of fupporting, you have killed and as it were crucified your caufe. * P. 33. The ( 55 ) The next argument * you have produced in favour of fprinkling, is that circumcifion was ap- plied to what ? Why, only to one part of the body. This is ftrange reafoning indeed ! Are you in earneft ? I can fcarcely think it ; but if you are in earneil, you mufl certainly mean, that the circtimcifing a perfon^s forejkin would be a marvellous pretty emhkm of wajloing his face ! Fie for fhame, — I could never have thought you capable of fo much abfurdity, if I had not i^Qxi it and read it with my own eyes !— I fay — offo much ahfurdity. For, in the name of common fenfe, let me only afk you what poflible likenefs there can be between applying water to the fiefh, and cutting it with a knife ? Befides, if the mode of Baptilrn may* be determined by circum- cifion, why not the fuhje5fs of it, — that is, 7nales exclufive of females. If this, therefore, is the boafted new light, with which you have orna- mented and embellifhed the prefent controverfy, you have no great realbn to be proud of it, You might as well have told us that becaufe the paf-r chal lamb in the pafibver was eaten with bitter herbs, therefore the wine in the ordinance of the Lord's fupper fhould be dafhed with wormwood, as a mofl exact and a m.oft fenfible reprefentation of the bitter fufferings of Jefus Chrift. For the Lord's Supper came in the room of the PafTover, juft as much as Baptifm did in the room of cir- cumcifion ; that is, not at all^ as we fhall prove in its proper place, when we proceed to difcourfe of the Baptifm of Infants. This droll argument, therefore, which to me is a new one, is not only very ridiculous^ hut wholly impertinent, * P. 34. E4 OUF ( 56 ) Our dextrous opponent hath farther bbferved,* that our Lord hath exprefly declared that the wafhing the feet (a leis noble part of the body tha:i the face) with a bafon of water, was as ef- fe.Liial as if the whole body had been wafhed-f. B Jt is the wafhing of feet a Chriftian ordinance ? Or did our Lord wafh the feet of his difciples, on purpofe to fpecify the mode of Baptifm. We are no where informed that he did. On the contrary, you well know, that it was only inten- ded as an emblem of Chriftian humility, — a virtue v/hich is no fmall ornament to the character of profeiTors in general, but of Gbrijlian minificrs in particular. As to the 3000 J, v/ho were converted in one day, yqu have not proved that they were ail bap- tized in one day, in one place, by one perfcn, and vvithout previous notice. It is only laid that they were all added m one day. Added to what ? Why to the number of thofe who heard and be- lieved the goipel. The fame expreffion is ufed in the 47th verfe ; v/here it is plain that added doth not iignify baptizfd^ but is to be taken in the fame fenfe I have here given to it. When I fup- pofc thar the 3000 were not ail baptized on the ver}^ felf-fame day, I do not wholly proceed upon the bare word of the paliage itfeli, (which doth not fay that they were baptized in one day,) but likewiie upon the ground of reafcnablenefs and probability. For though tjiey v/ere all added, i. e. (by the Lord) or converted in one day, ccmmon fenie might te^ch us that the apoftles and other difcipLs would f.arccly have baptized them, without a previous enquiry into their belief, or into the reality of their ccnverfion, one by one, * P. 34. t ^- 34^ X P- 3?- according J 57 ) according as they ortered themfelves for that pur- Fofe : — a circumilance which will bear me out if was to fay, that their confeiTion of the faith and their Baptifm, one after the other, might not have been compleated under the fpace of feveral days. But notwithftanding this, (fuppofing all of them Xo have been already prepared by a previous pro- feflion of their belief *) it would not have been impoflible to baptize them all by immerfion even on the fame day ; for, though we fhould fuppofe it to have been a full hour after noon before their Baptifm began, there would have been time fuf- ficient between that and night for the 1 2 apollles and 70 difciples to have baptized not only 3000, (about 36 or 37 people apiece) but even 3 times 30G0. As to tlie v/ant of, convenience for the baptizing fach a number of perfons by immerfion; it is fuifucient to obierve, chat the great frequency pf private baths in "jerufalem^ the feveral pools in it, and the many con cnien . es in the temple, v. ould have ler- ed handfomeiy for the purpofe, without creating a hubbub in the open ftreets \ — efpecially if we allow that they might not all have been baptized on the Jayne day . As to the jailor and his houfiold*^ it v/as very ufual in the climate v/here he lived to have baths cither in or near their houfes. We need not fup- pofe, then, that he was obliged to walk a mile or two to be plunged in a river. Or if he actually went to the river where the oratory was, which is mentioned in verfe the 13th, it may well be hoped that he had craily fervants, who would have taken care of the prifon and the prifoners till their mailer's return. For according to the * Which they miift have made, if they had only been fprinkled. f A^s xvi. circumftances ( 58 ) circiirriilances of the ftory, it is a clear cafe, that he took the apoillcs out of the prifon into his 6wn houle, where they preached to him and his family, (lee verfe the 3 2d-,) and that after this, he went out of the houfe to be baptized, (which he need not have done, if he was only to have been fprinkled) ; for after the Raptifm of himfelf and his houfhold, he recondudled the apoftles to his houfe, and fet meat before thein, (lee v. ^^.) Cur author hath argued to as little purpofc from the caie of the Eunuch. We know, indeed, that he was upon a journey ; and a long one too. What then, can be more improbable than that a perfonage of his high rank and diilinttion fhould be wholly unprovided, (as Mr. Mayo muft fup- pofe him to have been) with change of raiment ? But this article hath been fulhciently difcuffed already. Thus we have examined what our author calls his evidences and demonjhations. An impartial peiibn, I believe will not regard them in that favourable light. He feems, however, to be fo thoroughly fatisfied with his performance, that he afks the dodor by way of a parting Blow^ why he doth not endeavour to prevail upon his profe- Jytes to imitate the fuperilitious Jews altogether ^} That is, to be hapi%cd naked? " For if the "' whole body, fays he, mull be walhed, it is •^ necefiary it be uncloathed -, eife the body is '•' very little more affetUd^ or wet, than by wa- ** ter's being poured on the face." And yet, in letter the 3d, he is mighty fearful left even this method of applying water, little affe5fing as it is, fhould endanger the life of the iubject. For my I'iirt, hov/evcr, I cannot pemiade myfelf but %ii.it ( 59 ) what aperfon, who is dipped with his cloaths on, is as truly covered, and furrounded with water as if he had been naked, and is therefore as truly and as properly baptized to all intents and pur- pofes. But why Ihould I attempt a reply ? Such an illiberal witticifm is unworthy of a ferious anfwer. In Ihort, it is meer trifling, and difco- vers a hearty goodwill, rather to carry his caufe at ail adventures, than to find out the truth. — Our author, a perfon of great intelligence hath farther obferved, that " fome, for part of their ■" garments being above water, have been over- ^' whelmed again*". But is this really true? And, if it is true, is the Dodor accountable for it ? Or is a whole party to be condemned for the fuper- ftition of a few ? I believe not. Nor is the ahufe of any thing which is ufeful a fufficient reafon why it Ihould be totally difufed. Some men will drink wine to excefs. But who will confider this as any argument that others fhould drink none at all ? Mr. Mayo doth net think it fo^ I dare fay. — Confidering, therefore, the many unfair and fal- lacious proofs which he hath made ufe of to fup- port the caufe of fprinkhng, we may fay that though the prayer of one of the DoAor's lay- preachers^ (as our author hath quoted it) was not worded in the moll flattering terms, it was, however, far — very far^ from being altogether needlefs. But hitherto, we have chiefly combated the man of war. We mAifl: now begin with the man of wit., who hath exerted his every pov/er of ridi- cule to prove that dipping is sl grievous command-jr. He tells us, that, in the cafe of women, it is very immcdeji ^ and we are all fenlible that what- P. 35. f See letter the 3d. foever . ( ^o) foever is immodeft mufl be very grievous to a modefl perfon. But only notice the man's arti- fice. He ought to have proved that it is an im- modeft practice to baptize women, as they are baptized by the modern Antipcedohaptifts. To do this, he cunningly informs us, that it was the cuftom of fome in the ^d century to dip perfons na- ked y and then exclaims, with all the timorous and affedted delicacy of a poor antiquated vir- gin — " if this practice fhould prevail, — La \ how *' inftifferahfy indecent^ — and. La! how impu- *' dently immodeft would it be"! — What would be indecent, baMul Sir, and what would be immo- deft ? To baptize a woman who is in a proper drefs for the ordinance ? No, truly ; what then ? why, to dip her naked. Really, Sir, this is not fair play. For if an American favage could read what you have wrote, would not he naturally imagine, from hence, that the dipping of naked women is <9?^r practice .^ He certainly would. Learn then, either to argue juftly and to the purpofe, or not to argue at all. But to prove the abfolute and the flagrant indecency of adminiftering Bap- tifm by immerlion, we arc entertained in page the 1 6th, with a curious Latin note. " Father Conon^ *' it feems, who was engaged to anoint a naked *' young lafs with the holy oil, was fo embar- *' raffed by a certain carnal emotion, at the fight ^* of primitive beauty, that he was necefiitated *' to forbear the operation." A mighty pretty, decent ftory this ! — and doubtlefs of greater value than ten thoufand cahalijlical legends^ or JewiJJj fables ! — But ad rem^ as you fay : — to the point, modeft Sir. What fort of lik(^nefs can there be, between anointing a naked lady with oil, and hiiptizing a woman in water, who is properly cloathed, and decently habited for that purpofe .^ For ( 6i ) For my part, I can fee none; neither can you, nor any of your partizans, unlefs he is blefled with the gift of fecaid fight. We may, therefore, fufpect that thisyery modefl and very cleanly L^/i;i anecdote was purpofely fqueezed and rammed in, only to difplay your uncommon reading. One- would think however, that it would have been advifable to have been a little more delicate iii your collections. But come. Friend, if you talk of modefty, — what modefty or what decency can there be in your treatment of Dr. Gill? He Is greatly fuperior to you^ both in learning, and in point of age. We are commanded, you know, in Lev. xix. 32. to rife up before the hoary head^ and to honour the face cf the old man., and fear the Lord. Have you done this? Yes, truly, it calumny and abufe will pafs for i;everence and refpedl, you have done it to very fufficient pur- pofe ! you have accufed the Doctor of ignorance, bigotry, contempt of worthy men," part}^-zeal, an ambition to be the head of a Jedl, ' pride, re~ vengeful palTion, eqvetoufnefs, want of natural affection,— nay of abfolute impoflure ! You have ridiculed, and abufed, and vilified ihe man^ and— very politely— -condemned \i\?> lirltings t^ the privy-houfe. One would tjiink you mJghc have contented yourfelf v/ith returnihg argument for argument, and proof for proof. But what can be expected from a perfon, who — like you— hath had the amaTdng m.odefty to introduce Bap- tifm, and religious, controverfy into the very coffee-houfes and ta-verns., and make it the fport of every infidel witling, and every profligate debauchee. But to proceed ; — rmrmrfio^i., you tell us, is not only an im.modeft, and an indecent, but a very ( 62 ) very hazardous^ and a very dangerovis operation*. Now, can you fay this ferioufly ? And can you lay it without playing fo merrilv, as you have done, upon the brawny arms l^the Herculean firength^ which you fuppofe to be necefTary in the operator ? Alas ! dear tender-hearted Sir ! it may be, you have purpoiely appHed yourfelf to fome renowned y2?» of Galen^ and nov/ inform us, upon his authority, that dipping will infal« libly fnip afunder the thread of life a great deal fooner than dame nature intended ? What an inftance, then, was it of your great humanity and benevolence, to give thoughtlefs and un- wary Chriftians fuch public notice of their dan-* ger ! But, after all, wherein lies this mighty danger ? Truly, left the dipper or operator Ihould not chance to have bodily ftrength enough to perform his office in what you call a mafterly way. The difference, then, of only five or fix moments in the time of a perfon's ftay under the water produceth all the danger. But, if it is lawful to trifle with a trifler, is not Mr. M:z>'^,— the fagacious and learned Mr. Mayo^j — is he not philofopher enough to know, that the weight of all bodies immerfed in water is abun- dantly lighter than when, they are lituated in the pure air ;— and, confequently, that in water they are by far more wicldy. What need, then, either o^ brawny arms^ or of Herculean ftrength ? Or, wherefore Ihould dipping be fo very dan- gerous ? You will tell me, I fuppofe, that if dipping may give a man a cold^ and a ccld may give him a little fever ^ and a little fever may prefently increafe to a great one^ and a great fever may fend him packing to his grave^ — it will fol- * P. 16. low ( 63 ) low, fecimdum cirteniy that dipping alfo may fend a man to his grave. But wherefore Ihould dip- ping give him a cold ? Doth he flay an hour or two in the wat-er ? — Scarcely a minute. Doth he continue long in the fame cloaths in which he was baptized ? Scarcely a minute. For his wet cloaths are exchanged for dry ones as foon as ever he hath left the water. Where, then, is the danger ? Where is the hazard ? Many per- fons will do as much as this, even in the fevereH: time of the year, not to deflroy their health, but to confirm it. Really, Sir, lb mighty fearful as you fee m to be of water, one rriight almoft iiiP peel that you are afflicted with an hydrophobia^ and that the very fight of it would throw you • into a fwoon. Otherwife, you could fcarcely have imagined (as you do) that Baptifm hy dip- ping is a more difagreeable^ a more painful^ and a ^niore dangerous operation than even circumcifion *. But why don't you improve upon your plan, and tell us, at once, that, in rainy or in very cold weather, it would be extremely dangerous to attend divine worfhip ? There^ is, certainly, as much hazard in this cafe, and even more, than in being plunged into the w^ater, and imme- diately fhifted with dry cloaths. ' But your an- swer is ready. You will tell me, that if a m.aii will expofe himfelf to a thouTand inconveniences of this fort, to difpatch his bufihefs in the.world, the lead he can do is to run the fame rifle to at- ,tend the fervice of his Maker. JLet this anfwer extend, as it ought to do, to Ckriftian Baptifm, where the danger is not lb imimediate •, or, rather, where the danger is only imagpiary, * V. 15, i3. But ( ^4 ) But let us haflen to Mr. Majo'% Cafe of Con^ fcience *. '^ There are, fays he, feveral living " credible witnefles of a man's being dipped, ^' who happening to have a weak or unfkilful *' operator, or too long a nofe^ part of it was " not under the water." This is an important fadt indeed, and deferves to be fupported by the moft credible and the moft reputable witnefles alive ! But what then ? Why the cream of the jeft is what follows. *' Query, was hc^ (that is, *' the man with the long over-grown nofc) was *' this man, I fay, properly baptized? elpe- " cially as feveral, for part of their faces, or *' arms, or garments, not being under the " water, have been obliged to fubmit to a *^ fecond dipping." — ' — Now, gentle reader, what doft thou think is the true import of this query I — this witty, this delicate, this very harmlefs and very innocent query? — Why^ the query is — what Ihall Icall it ? — It is, as it were, a proclamation of vi5fory \ it is a fair fignal to purfue with might and main ! In fhoi't, it i$"'as much as to fay, '^ are all the Baptifls arrant *' fools ^ now-i cr are they not F" For you muft know that the Rev. Henry Mayo, majler of artSy- is as merry a little mortal as any living. And when can a man be merry with a better grace, than when he hath heartily drubbed and baffled all his opponents ? Our caufe is gone. The field of battle is his ov/n. I mean he cer- tainly thinks fo j and, for that reafon, he is alto- gether as well pleafed, and looks altogether as briflc as if it really was fo. Some perfons, per- haps, woiild return his query a grave anfwer. But as I have always thought it a great pity to diilurb a friend in his mirth, I Ihall e'en referve • P. i6, my (65) my gravity for a more fitting occafion, — and^ for the prefent, that our funny little Theologiie may never want a play-thing to divert himielf with, I ihall beg his acceptance of the following merry fable. "An honeft Athenian who was *' footing it over a fpacious heath, where not a •• fingle tree would afford him llielter, was fo *' overpowered by the heat of the fun that he *' was obliged to halt and reft awhile on the *' ground. But fuch was his good fortune, that *• it was not long before he was overtaken by *' a young B^otian^ who was mounted on a ilurdy •' afs. This he prefently bargains for, and *' makes it his own ; and thus accommodated, *' he refumes his journey. He had not, how- *' ever, advanced many furlongs before he was *' again fo over-powered by the fcorching rays •' of Phcehus^ that he was obliged to difmount *• and repofe himfelf in the afs'j fhadow. The *^ other foon comes up with him xht fecond tirae^ *' and being equally defirous of cooling himfelf, ** he infifls upon his chapman's riling and making *' room for the proper owner. No, fays the *' Athenian^ that can never be ; for I have juft *^ bought the afs and paid for him, and may *' therefore juflly call him my own. True, re- *' plies the Baotian^ the afs is certainly your's : ** but though I fold you the heaft^ you ought to *' remember that I did not fell you his Jhadow, *' Accordingly, our citizen of Athens was obli- *' ged to rile, and yield that to the other's youth " and ftrength which in juflice he might have ** claimed for himfelf." — Now, the moral of this fable, good Sir, is — what do you think '^. Wh/ it fignifies that when a man hath a bad caufe, which he is refolved to defend, every pitiful eva- fion willferve his turn-, — nay, that, fooner than P ' fail. ( 66 ) fail, even a jeer and a fneer will fupply the place of a proper argument. This I hope, Sir, is as full an anfwer as you can defire to your cafe of conlcience. But what fliall I fay, when you refiedl upon Anti-pa'dchaptifm as a yiovel dourinc ? You have infinuaied that immerfion is not above two centu- ries old. * Who were thole then who made a jDrafticc of dipping naked ? You tell us, fome wha lived in the ^d century. This is ilrangc indeed, — chat immerfion fliould have been pra6liced fo early as even the third century, and yet be firft intro- duced in the i c^th or 1 6th century. Verily, — men who utter falfhoods fhould have good memories. Eat you will be troubled to prove that it was firft invented and introduced even in the third century ; dipping naked might be fo. But dipping naked is a manifefl ahufe : — an abufe of immerfion •, in the fame manner as eatins; and drinking to cxcefs would be abufes ot the Lord'^ fupper. But is it probable that immerfion and the abufe of it wxre both introduced together ? No ; there muft be time allowed, and one would think, fome very confiderable time too, for fuch an indecent inno- vation as dipping naked. But to cut the difpute, abou*- the antiquity of Baptifm by immerfion as iliort as poffible •, it is fufHcient to fay that if it can be i. i.i; proved (as I believe it hath been) that all the Baptifms which ar.^ circumilantially re- corded in holy writ were thus adminiilered,— we heed no other voucher that the moll ancient and the moil: apoftohc mode of Baptifm is immerfion. Our autliOr himfelf feems to be fatisfied witli tliis method of argument. For notwithilanding his flings at immerfion as a novel cuftom, he hatK • P: x8. not ( ^7 ) not attempted to quote any author either of the firfl, fecond, or third century in favour of fprinkling \ which h* would readily have done, if it had anfwered his purpofe. He hath inionned iis, indeed, as abovementioned, that dipping na- ked was the cuilom of fome in the third century : but this, if any thing, makes rather againil him than for him. But, whether he knows it or not, Baptifm by immerfion, v/hich continued 1300 years in the Latin church, excepting in the cafe of the Clinicks^ and is flill pra61:iced in the Greek church, v/as firft perverted into fprinkling by the popijh fchoolmen. It mufl farther be obferved, to the honour of the church of England^ that they have never yet eftablifhed Baptifm by fprinkling. They have only permitted pouring-^ in cafe of a weakly conflitution. For, otherwife, the. prieft is directed by the rubric to dip the child in water difcreetly and ivarily. So that in England^ fprink- ling hath been honoured with nothing more than a prejl)yterian fandlion, which v/as given to it m the times of the v.ivii war, by the aflembly of di- vines :— and even there it was carried in favour of fprinkling againil dipping by a fi.ig'ie vote :>nly, that is by 25 againil 24. Let our author judge then, whether he hath not miferably overihot: his mark in fneering, as he hath done, at the IjoC" tor s Ugotted ancejlcrs of two centuries pafi. He hath farther aflced us whether or not it is to be fuppofed — '^ that the head of the church '' would not have taken care that his members *' lliould never fo univerfally and for fo many *' years have departed from the mode of dip- " ping, if it had been the only true way? •'*' This queilion mJght be readily anRvered by 17' F 3 J another ( 68 ) another which is fomewhat like it.- How manjr years, think you, did the head of the church fuffer, I will not fay a fingle people, or a fingle nation, but all Chriftendom^ (excepting a few of the Do6tor's bigotted anceftors) to be involved and overwhelmed, and as it were intombed in RomiJJj ignorance and fuperfcition ? Hov/ many years did he leave the whole chriftianized world, \i we except a few individuals, intangled in errors, which are not merely circumitantial, but have the moft dangerous and the . :ufl: fatal tendency ? According to your way rcafoning, vvre Ihould infer Irom hence that Popijh idolatry is true religion. The Catholics thcmielves have y/orn the argument entirely three abare by preaching and repreaching, and printing and reprmting it, almoll times out of number. But a Proteftant, a Proteilant Bilfenter, and a Pro- teftant diffenting miniller fhould reaion other- wife. You mult certainly know, or ought to Jcnow, that as to the prefenLC of Chrift, with his church it is fufficient if he gives this where his church is, be they many or few, and where his ordinances are admiflered as he hath dire61:ed. For he hath no v/here promifed that he will s;ive ^ fucceflion of viable or congregated churches^ It is true, indeed, that in all ages he will have a number of faithiul followers, and that his invi- fible church, which is built and grounded on himfelf, as on a frable rock, fhall never fail. jBut that thefe lliall always be aiTembled into a vifible church he hath no where promifed. Ac-r cordingly, for many hundreds of years together^ it will be diincult to difoover even a fingle chyrch thus united^ unlefs the people in the vallies of Piedmont may claim that title. We might add, if the general difufe of a religious inilitution (69) inftitution is any argument againft the praftio: of it, that the very fame corruption hath pre- vailed in the Lord's fupper, which hathf disfi- gured the ordinance of Baptifm. For the former hath, for many ages, been fo much perverted and adulterated, that it hath been metamorphofed into a mafs of idolatry and blafphemy. Learn, then, intelligent Sir, learn now, if you never knew it before, that a multitude is no criterion cf truth, I fhall clofe the controverfy with obferving,^ that the practice oi fprinkliyig hath given a nota- ble opportunity to the Catholics of embarrafling Prot eft ants in the article of oral and unfcriptural tradition. For, fay they, if you can fprinkle your children without either a command or a precedent for it in fcripture, you muft do it from tradition and the authority of the church. And if you will fubmit to this in one point, why not in others ? The very fame advantage, upon the fame principles, hath the eilabiifhed church over Proteilant dilTenters. For as one of them fays — {Whithy in his Protefcant Reconciler, page 289.) — '' if, notwithilanding the evidence *' produced that Baptifm by immerfwn is fuitable . " both to the inftitution of our Lord and his *' apoftles ; and was by chem ordained to repre- '' lent our burial with Chrift, ^c. — I fay, if *' notv/ithftanding this, all our Dijfenters (he *^ muft only mean the Fcedohapifts) do agree to ' " fprinkle the baptized infant^ why may they *' not as well fubmit to the fignificant ceremo- *' nies impofed by our church ? For fmce it is ^' as lawful to add unto Chrift*s inftitutions a ^' fignificant ceremony, as to diminifh a fignifi^ J^ cant ceremony, which he or his apoftles in- " ftituted ( ?° > . . . . «*= ftituted, and ufe another in its ficad which " they never did inititute ; what reafon can' *^ they have to do the latter, and yet refule fiib- '' million to th^e former ? And why fhouid not '* the peace and union of the cliurch be as pre- *^ vailing with them, to perform the one, as is ^' their mercy to the infant's body to neglect the *' other ?" Thus we fee that inhnt-fpnnklihg is the grand plea for compliance, both with the church of Rome and the church of England, Now, then, friend Mayo^ we have each of us [aid cur fciy^ and fought our fight, and mufl leave it wholly to the determination of the pub- lic, vyhich of us hath moft effedually baffled his man,— — you the DoElor^ or I you ? It may be, you will think it an inilance of great prefump- tion, that an infignificant Layman^ (as I am) ihould attack a dignified Thcologue. But the old proverb will- excufe me Amicus Socrates^ emicus Pleto^ fed magis arnica Veritas " So- ** crates is a friend, and Plato is a friend, but *' truth is a nearer friend.'*' I have, I mult cwn, a refpedl for the cloth in general \ and, fo far as your labours have been ufeful, I have a real refped for you. But wherein you have en- deavoured to expofe the truth, (though, it is to he hoped, not wittingly, and from malice pff^ fcnfe^) you mufl not be angry that I have taken you gently to t?Sk. I liave, to be fure, been a little familiar with you. I have, asitwTre, even taken thee by the hand, and addrefTed thee with the greateft freedom. Yea, I have fome times ventured to be merry upon thee. But, in this, I have only imitated thine own example •, which^ if it is an offence, will I hope be a very excufabl^ one. You v/ili cenainiy find room for it under the ( 70 the fpacious mantle cf your charity, * But, / hear you fay^ what is become of my 5th letter ? Have you read that ? Yes, Sir ; I have read it. But before I venture to anlV/er it, I muft wait to fee, w^hetlier you will thank me, as you have done the Bol^or^ for the friendly pains 1 have taken with you already. I have but little time to fpare; — and great would be the pity to oblige you v/ith thaty and have no thanks for it after all. But, however, not to put you out of heart, if nothing extraordinary fhould prevent me, I may poinbly, before long, take the other turn with you, and fay fomething upon the fubje6c of Infant-haptifm, In the mean time, give me leave to wifhyou well, and to admonifh you, (if you fhould ever refume the pen of controverfy,) that, though argument may ihift tolerably without ridicule, — ridicule without argum.ent will make but a fcurvy appear- ance indeed! Join them together, and welcome. " 0772m tulit pUfttfutn^ qui mifadt utile child.''' * Sec page 72. infrn. F I N I S. ERRATUM. Page 44.. line 22. read u/ito a nourAaln, \ # J^^ rty a» >' i» » >■-. ^ jtf m * 9 m ,|^j) JI J. .. ..■ mmm ^^.) >;^:w ^g»n) ^%i^ m h-