IJC^g^^^j^lSsSsS^dfe 
 
 R E M A R 
 
 O N 
 
 The Christian Minister's 
 Reasons for adminillring Baptism 
 by Sprinkling or Pouring of Water. 
 
 ^^^p^^ap^^^psp^s^^^^p^p^^^^^^p^^ 
 
 3C3 
 
REMARKS 
 
 O N 
 
 The Christian Minis te r*s 
 Reasons for adminiftring Baptism 
 by Sprinkling or Pouring of Water: 
 
 I N 
 A Series of Letters to a Friend. 
 
 By SAMUEL^ STENNETT, D. D. 
 
 No'w I praife you, brethren, that you remember me in 
 all things, and keep the or di fiances, as I delivered them 
 to you. I Cor. xi. 2. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for George Keith, in Gracechurch- 
 Street; James Buckland, in Pater-nofter- 
 Rowj and John Robinson, at Shad-Thames, 
 
 <C>? MDCCLXXII, 
 
.T„v 
 
 ^*1^ 
 
 I 
 
C y ] 
 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 '^r 
 
 LETTER 
 
 L 
 
 
 JL NtroduSiory Retnarks. 
 
 
 Paget 
 
 
 LETTER 
 
 IL 
 
 
 The, 
 
 Nature and Intent of Chrifiian Baptlfm. 
 
 13 
 
 
 LETTER 
 
 IIL 
 
 
 Groundlefs Prefujnptlons agalnji the Practice of 
 Immerfion. 22 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The meaning of the word Baptize. 39 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Baptifms of the JewSy our Saviour, and 
 the Eunuchs 62 
 
 A LET. 
 
L E T T E R VI. 
 
 Scriptural Allufwm to Immerfion, 5_5 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Baptifms fuppofed to have been admmlftered by 
 JJperfion, JO J 
 
 LETTER VIIL 
 Pajfages fuppofed to allude to Afperfion^ 1 18 
 
 L E T T E R IX. 
 
 Conchfton, 135 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 "Page 144, tins lafly for in read itom. 
 
 PRE- 
 
[ vii ] 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 F'^x)sC"^ H E following: fheets contain 
 M )tiC I'^i^^^rk^ upon that part only 
 k)^)^JM{ Qf ]y[p^ Addington's work, 
 which refpeds the Mode of Baptifm: 
 whether the publick will be troubled 
 with any ftridures on the latter part 
 of it, which treats of the SuhjeBs of 
 .Baptifm, is uncertain. This method, 
 however, ®f ^ replying to the former 
 queftion firft, was deemed moft pro- 
 A 2 per. 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 per, not only as the two points are 
 of diftind confideration, but as it was 
 apprehended the length of the re- 
 marks, in the other method, would 
 render them tedious to the Reader, 
 and occafion perhaps a curfory at- 
 tention to them. And yet there is, 
 it muft be confefled, even in the 
 prefent attempt, an appearance of pro- 
 lixity which very naturally demands 
 an apology. For who would expeft 
 that any fuch doubts fliould arife 
 refpedling the mode of a pofitive in- 
 ftitution, as would require the dif- 
 quifition of upwards of a hundred 
 pages ? efpecially confidering the ge- 
 nerally acknowledged limplicity of the 
 Chriflian difpcnfation, and the in- 
 finite wifdom and goodnefs of its 
 great Founder and Legiflator. The 
 
 truth 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 truth is, our Mafler hath conveyed 
 his will to us ill the clearefl: terms, 
 and his own practice and that of liis 
 Apoftles exadly corrcfpond therewith : 
 fo that the evidence in favour of irn- 
 merfion, is level to the plained under- 
 ftanding, and may be brought within 
 the compafs of two or three pages, as 
 the Reader will fee hath been at- 
 tempted at the clofe of this piece. It 
 is not therefore the intricacy of the 
 queftion itfelf, but the doubtful light 
 in which fome may perhaps think 
 Mr. Addington hath placed it, that 
 has occafioned the length of thefe re- 
 marks. Wherefore his ingenuity in 
 the mangement of the argument will, 
 I hope, apologize for my prolixi- 
 ty- 
 
 If 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 If it be aflced of what confequence 
 it is whether much or Httle water is 
 ufed in Baptifm ? I anfwer, the quan- 
 tity is perfedly indifferent, provided 
 there be enoug-h to conftitute the ce- 
 remony Baptifn. As therefore the 
 Baptifts are clearly of opinion, that 
 fprinkling or pouring of water upon 
 a perfon is not baptizing him, they 
 wifii to be confidered, while pleading 
 ibr immerfion, as contending not for 
 a particular mode of Baptifm, but for 
 Baptifm itfelf. And this being the 
 cafe, they cannot look upon the que- 
 ftion in debate as indifferent or of lit- 
 tle importance, without admitting a 
 principle of very injurious confequence 
 in matters of religion, I mean a right 
 of annihilating, or at leaft mutilating 
 and changing, a pofitive inftitution. 
 1 . This 
 
P R E F A C E. xi 
 
 This I am fatisfied will be confidered^ 
 by every fober and candid man, as a 
 fufficient excufe for what might other- 
 wife be deemed an undue attachment 
 to forms. 
 
 And yet, perfuaded as the Baptifts 
 are that, while pleading for immerfion, 
 they are pleading for the very exift- 
 ence of a pofitive inftitution, it is 
 poffible their zeal may exceed. This 
 i-s the cafe when an undue flrefs is laid 
 upon Baptifm, and when it is defended 
 in an improper manner. Now it is 
 certain that they lay un undue ftrefs 
 upon this facred rite, who maintain 
 that it is neceffary to falvation, or 
 place it in the fame point of view 
 with a moral precept. Bat, if there 
 are any Baptiiis who do this, I pro- 
 A X feii 
 
xii PREFACE. 
 
 fcfs I do not know them. It is noto- 
 rious that, as a body, they utterly dif- 
 clahii fuch dangerous opinions. Nay> 
 the making Baptifm a faving ordinance 
 is totally inconfiftent with the grand 
 principle upon which they exclude in- 
 fants from a right to it; I mean the ne- 
 ceffity of a profeffion of faith in Chrift, 
 and of a perfon's giving fome credible 
 proof that he is a New Creature. To 
 whi^h I will add, that this miftaken 
 notion of its importance feems to have 
 been the true caufe of thofe cor- 
 ruptions both as to the mode and the 
 JiihjcQs. of the inftitution, which the 
 Baptifis fo much lament, and fo ear- 
 neltly wifli to reform. The Clinici, 
 that is, perfons confined to their beds 
 by Rcknef?, apprehending that they 
 could not be faved without being 
 
 bap- 
 
P R E F A C E. xili 
 
 baptized, were eager to be admitted 
 to B^ptiiin. But, not being in cir- 
 cu'mftances capable of immerlion, 
 Iprinkling or pouring of water came 
 to be admitted as a kind of fucceda- 
 neum in the room of it» And how 
 this reafoning operated in regard alfo 
 of the admiffion of infants to Baptifp, 
 I think any one may eafily perceive, 
 The£b things confidered, it will furely 
 be acknowledged, that the Baptifts, 
 of all people, are the leaft to be fuf- 
 pedled of laying any fuch ftrefs upon 
 this ordinance as is prejudicial to the 
 interefls of real perfonal religion. 
 If, however, an attempt to reduce 
 Baptifm to its original fimplicity, and 
 to confine it to thofe only who are 
 properly qualified for it, be deemed 
 criminal, or an objeil difproportioned 
 
 to 
 
XIV P R E F A C E, 
 
 to the zeal exprefled about it; 1 fear 
 the laudable endeavours of Proteftants 
 in general, to refcue the other pofitive 
 inftitution of Chrifl from the innova- 
 tion of Romanifts, will fall under the 
 fame cenfure. 
 
 But we are often told, that the fre- 
 quent and large publications of the 
 Baptifts upon this fubjetfl, and their 
 zealous endeavours to profclyte others- 
 to their opinion, furnilli too plain a 
 proof that they hold this tenet of 
 theirs in a point of light much more 
 important than it deferves. Before,. 
 however, fo unfavourable, a conclufioii 
 is drawn from thefe fadls, the fafbs 
 themfelves ought furely to be very 
 clearly eftablifhed. As to the books 
 that have been written upon this ar- 
 gument. 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 gument, whoever inquires into the 
 hiftory of the controverfy Vv'ill find, 
 that moft of the produdlions from the 
 pens of Baptifts are anfwers to the 
 writings of Pcrdobaptifls : fo that 
 they are fcarce ever to be confidered 
 as aggreflbrs. And as to their en- 
 deavours to profelyte others to their 
 opinion, there may, I acknowledge, 
 have been weak and raiTi attempts 
 of this fort, which it v^'ould be a folly 
 to excufe. I can, however, freely 
 declare for myfelf (and I believe moft 
 of my brethren can fay the fame) 
 that it affords me infinitely greater joy 
 to hear, that a man is become a iincere 
 «difciple of Chrift, than that in a frenzy 
 of party-zeal he has thrown down 
 the gauntlet, and declared himfelf a 
 Champion in the caufe of Baptifm. 
 
 Nor 
 
xvi PREFACE. 
 
 Nor do I love a fellow Chriftian, who 
 confcientioufly differs from me in this 
 point, a whit lefs than one who has 
 been immerfed in Jordan itfelf. But 
 ftill, .an allowance fhould be made, 
 and I am perfaaded will by all who 
 have any acquaintance with human 
 nature, for the effed: which a clear 
 conviction of the truth, and a defire 
 that others may be convinced of it, 
 hath upon an honeft mind. 
 
 As to the manner in which this 
 controverfy has been conducted, I am 
 afraid both parties have fometimes 
 failed, in regard of that meeknefs 
 and charity which the gofpel teaches., 
 if not that good-nature and decorum 
 which the laws of humanity demand* 
 Such, it has often been obferved, is 
 
 the 
 
PREFACE, xvii 
 
 the unhappy fate of very many reli- 
 gious difputes. But, wherever the 
 fault lies, I mod heartily agree v^ith 
 all good men in lamenting, not ex- 
 cufing it. Intemperate heat will na- 
 turally enough precipitate a bigot 
 (and fuch there are among all de- 
 nominations of Chriflians) into thefe 
 fliameful miftakes. But how ftrange 
 is it that they who mean well, how- 
 ever miftaken, fliould » fuffer them- 
 felves to be put out of humour by 
 the weaknefs of their own arguments ! 
 A fenfible obferver will, in fuch a 
 cafe, give a flirewd guefs where the 
 truth lies, without entering into the 
 debate. It ill becomes me, I own, 
 confidently to determine on Vv^hich 
 fide the weight of this prefumptive 
 kind of evidence, in the difpute about 
 
 5 ^^P^ 
 
xvlii PREFACE. 
 
 Baptifm, preponderates. If, however, 
 the Bap tills are chargeable with any 
 degree of that guilt, I hope it will 
 receive no addition to it from this 
 attempt. 
 
 Befides the many confiderations 
 which the gofpel fuggeftvS, to guard 
 me againft undue warmth, there is 
 one which ought to have a peculiar 
 effed: on 7ny^ mind, and that is the 
 example of a much honoured Anceflor, 
 who has not only done fingular juftice 
 to the argument itfelf, but, in the 
 management of it, has flievv^n a noble 
 fuperiority to the rudeft and mofl in- 
 decent invedlives, that were perhaps 
 ever thrown out againft any fet of men 
 profeffing Chriftianity. I mean not 
 by this to infmuate, that the book to 
 
 which 
 
PREFACE. XIX 
 
 which I reply bears a refemblance to 
 that. No. The ingenious Author 
 is a man of a very different caft from 
 Mr. RuffenM his language is decent, 
 his manner pleafing, and his profef- 
 fions candid and impartial. And I 
 ihould ftrangely forget myfelf, if I did 
 not hold his charader, as a Gentle- 
 man, a Scholar, and a Minifler, in 
 all due refpeft. Yet, if it fhould be 
 found that expreffions have dropt from 
 Mr. Addington's pen, that may draw 
 upon a body of people refledions of a 
 very ignominious kind, he will not i<^ 
 think it ftrange that an Apologift 
 fhould feel pain on their behalf. 
 Groundlefs as thofe reflections are, 
 I forbear to mention them here, as 
 I mean to appeal to the judgment of 
 the Reader, not to his paffions. If, 
 5 how- 
 
XX P R E F A C E. 
 
 however, in the courfe of thefe Re- 
 marks, I {hould at any time have 
 been fo unhappy as to exprefs myfelf 
 with too much warmth, I hope it 
 will be forgiven me; and that an error 
 of this fort will not be conftrued into 
 a defign of fixing the imputation of a 
 malignant intention en the Author to 
 whom I reply. 
 
 LEI' 
 
LETTER I, 
 
 Dear SiR^ ^ 
 
 jr^J^^TM^T your reqtieft, I fend yoH fome 
 ^ A ^ general remarks on a performance 
 *S 1?^ °^ ^^' -^^di^g^^^^^-i on the long 
 
 ]HL^){(^^ controverted fubjed of Baptlfm. A 
 piece vvhich has indeed been fome time publifti- 
 ed, but did not till lately fall into my hands. 
 The idea I had formed of the Author, as a fen- 
 fible as well as pious man, his profeflions of wi' 
 pariialUy'm the dedication, and the account he 
 there gives of the refult of hi^ inquiry, that it 
 was ^* abundantly fatisfa£tory to him,"*' led me 
 to apprehend that he had fomething to fay upoa 
 the fubjecSl: which I had not confidered, or how* 
 ever hot fo deliberately as he had done ; fo that 
 I expelled to ilnd the argument on his fide of 
 the queftion, placed in a new, if not -a more 
 convincing, point of light. B-ut, upon looking 
 into the i)Ook:, I found the matter quite other- 
 - ^-'^ B wife J 
 
2u ■ IntrodiiSfory Remarks, ,>/ '"\ 
 
 .#vire ; and the farther I proceed in k particular 
 Jlnd accurate examination of it, the more I am 
 convinced that my apprehenfion was ill founded. 
 J fliould indeed have been glad, if his reafoning, 
 though 'falfe, had not been fo-loofe, unt^onnec^- 
 ■ed, and defultory ; as in that cafe I fhould have 
 been at lefs pain in following him, and you 
 ivould have lefs trouble in perufmg my remarks. 
 
 You will not. Sir, I am fure, charge me with 
 teing uncandid, when I fay, that Mr. y/.'s fenfe 
 of the motto affixed to his title, is do b^ explain- 
 ed by the title, it-felf.that precedes it : and confc*- 
 <quently that he would have^us confider the pro- 
 phet, when he fays, He fiall fprinkle many yiations^ 
 as meaning that Cbrift: fliould, either himfelf, or 
 by bis minifters, baptiz^e infants by fprinkling or 
 pouring of vyajter la^on them. I aip aware i indeed 
 that mottos are <?ft.en ehofen in a way of accom- 
 modation ; byt, as moil jeaders . will be apt tp 
 underftand him as I have done, I cannot think 
 Mr. A. if he had not wifhed them to confider the 
 paiTage as referring to Baptifm, would have thrown 
 fuch a fnare in their way. And yet I know not 
 how to perfuade myfelf that h? does really believe 
 this to b.e the fenfe of the t€xt. If it be clearly 
 che fenfe ©fit, ;all pccafion pf .hfp afterTlabors is 
 manifeflily precluded.s ^nd a;man need go no far- 
 ther than the title for.a fatisfaiSlory proof of the 
 point our Author wouJW ijoaiAtain. . Nay,,!ijfvlhis 
 I a inter- 
 
Inirodu6lory Remarks, 3 
 
 rhtcrpretation of the palTage be admitted, the 
 jie^t claufe of the verfe, feme will perhaps fay, 
 may with as good reafon be referred to Baptifin 
 alfo. The plain meaning is, that his dodrihe 
 Should defcend like rain upon many nations 
 and people, and with fuch evidence and con- 
 vidlion, that even kings fhould be ftruck dumb^ 
 and have 'nothing to reply. And what, I be- 
 feech you. Sir, has this to do with Baptifm f 
 Thus unhappy has Mr. J. been in the choice 'of 
 his motto ! And if this be the *' firft reafon" he 
 has to offer in favor of hisf opinion, I cannot but; 
 ^h'lnk the confiderate reader will be apt to fuf- 
 pe£V,' that thof^. v/Viich follow may not, all of] 
 them, be perfectly •couclufive. 
 
 • ■ 
 As profelTions of candor, modefty, and impar- 
 tiality, have frequently an undue kifluence on 
 f<5fiit kind of readers, and as I have myfelf felt 
 the force of them with refpecSt to Mr. J, ; it may 
 not'bfe'amirs to.-tnake a few remarks an his "De- 
 ** clicatioh" and '* Advertifement." He informs 
 his people, that " previous to his inquiry into 
 *< the fcriptiire do<irine of^ Chriftian Baptifm, he 
 " endeavoured to divefl him'felf of every preju- 
 '* dice, and determined to follow the truth 
 '^ whither foever it might lead him (a)" A noble 
 rcfolution this ! A refolution in which I mofl: 
 
 r^; Page 3. 
 
 JB 2 heartily 
 
4 Inlrodu5lory Remarks, 
 
 litartiiy wiili he may be followed by every in- 
 quirer into the matter now in debate. But, I 
 acknowledge. Sir, it not a little furprifes me to 
 hear him declare afterwards, in fuch llrong terms, 
 t1iat the refult of this his inquiry was '^ abun- 
 *'* dantly fatisfadory to him f and that " the 
 •* reafons for his pra6lice appear to him now in 
 ** a much ftronger light than before 3 and that 
 ** he is more fully convinced than €ver, that the 
 " rpecious objedlions which are thrown out 
 *' againft it, have no folid foundation in reafofi, 
 ^^ or the word of God {h).^^ I fhall only obferve 
 here, that it will appear from many conceflions 
 which I fhall cite in the fequel, that the efte£l 
 of fuch inquiry has been very different with re- 
 fpedl to fome of the wifcft and moft learned men, 
 that this or any other country have produced ; 
 and who, notwithftanding, have continued in the 
 fame pradlice with our Author. One inftance, 
 however, I cannot help mentioning in this place : 
 ,it is of Bp. Taylor^ whofe learning and piety will 
 not allow us to queftion his having taken great 
 pains to inveftigate this fubje£l, and his having 
 endeavoured, like Mr. A.^ to diveft himfelf of 
 every prejudice. He fays, upon fumming up the 
 whole, that there is much more truth than evidence 
 on hisfidci that is, on the fide of the Pcedobap- 
 tifts (c). 
 
 (b) Page 4. (4) Liberty of Prophefying, § x8. edit. 
 An. X647, 
 
 As 
 
InirodiiUory Remarks, 5- 
 
 As Mr. A. has thus, entered upon his inquiry 
 without prejudice, {o he tells us he has profe- 
 cutcd it with deliberation. *' He hath not wrif* 
 " ten in hafte. He hath endeavoured to enter 
 *' into the true meaning of fuch pafiages as re- 
 '* Lite to Baptifm, and halh explained them in a 
 *< fcnfe that appears to him (upon the mntureft 
 *' confideration) moft confiftent and fcriptu^ 
 " ral (d)" Whether he has fiicceeded, we 
 fliall quickly fee. But I cannot help fearing, 
 from the fpecimen he has given us in the title- 
 page,, that his confideration of other paffages 
 may have been rather hajiy^ than ?72aiurcv,T\6: delr- 
 bcrate. 
 
 His reafons for this publication, fo far as h'e 
 has thought fit to difclofe them, I think none can 
 difapprove, viz. " To gratify the defire of his 
 " people, who wijfhed to have the reafons of 
 " their conduct explained in public/* But,^ 
 confideilng the reputation in which Infant Bap- 
 tifiYi \s generally held, it was rather fuperfluous- 
 to itdd, *' that he might not feeni aftiamedof any 
 ** do(5iiine or duty taught in the eternal oracl(?s 
 of truth (e),'* As for " thofe reafons, which ia 
 ^ rendernefs to others, he chufes to fupprefs 
 " here ;" he hath only left me at liberty toguefs- 
 what they are (f), I therefore conjedure (the* 
 how the matter is i know not) that fome Bap- 
 
 (dl Page 4, 5. (e) Page 4, 5. (f) Page 5. 
 
 B 3. tifl3 
 
6 JntrodiiElory Remarks. 
 
 lifts in Mr.^.'s neighbourhood have lately been 
 defending their principles; and, I hope, from the 
 fan-ie motive with him, *' that they might not 
 *' fcem afhamed of what they believe to be their 
 ** duty," and which too many treat not only 
 with indifference, but contempt. This may per- 
 haps have put his people upon the inquiry. And 
 if that fhould prove to be the cafe, I really think 
 he fhould, in tendernefs to his people, have ra- 
 ther prudently fupprefled his reafom for Infant- 
 Bapiifm^ than, in tendernefs to the Baptifts, have 
 thus fupprefTed his renfons for puhlijhi?jg thofe rea- 
 .ibns. But be Mr- A.'s private reafons what they 
 may, if the interefts of truth are promoted by his 
 publication, all wife and good men of every de- 
 nomination will, I hope, rejoice. You will al- 
 low me, Sir, now I am fpeaking of Mr. t^.'s ten- 
 dernefs to his Baptift-neighbours, to exprefs my 
 ivifhes that, for his own fake, his tendernefs had 
 extended a little farther^ and that, as he has 
 afuired us, '* he hath not written with a defign 
 , *' to offend," he had tenderly fupprejjed a long 
 note he hath inferred towards the clofe of his- 
 book, in order (1 hope I am not uncharitable in 
 i'ay'iHg it) to give his reader an unfavourable idea 
 of the origin of the Bapt. fts. This furely is not 
 very candid. It is acting, fome will be apt to 
 think, too much like thpie whom our author 
 himfelf ililesj iUrncu.ured retailers of hackney d ob- 
 
 ferva^ 
 
hitrodu5fory Remarks. 7 
 
 fervaiiofts. The confideration of the note Itfelf I 
 (hall refer to its proper place. 
 
 in his Advertifement, which follows the Dedi- 
 cation, Mr. vf. tells us, -that " theenfuing trea- 
 *V life is intended not fo much to amufeas to in- 
 ** ftru6t." How it may have been with others I 
 know not ; but as to me, the effe{5i, I acknow- , 
 lodge, has been the diredl contrary to what th«- 
 Aut!ht)r intended : I am unuch more amufed than 
 inJiru^ecL This, however, being the cafe, I am 
 in the lefs .danger of feeling any the leaft provo- 
 cation he may have given to '' an angry conten- 
 ** tious fpirir,'-' which he aiTut-es us in the next 
 rentence, and I am candidly difpofcd to beJievCr 
 was by no means his intention. Indeed, Sir, the 
 reading h.is book is fo far from having any fuch 
 effect upon me, that i verily Iw^iieve, if \ had 
 taljien it up iri an ill humour (which 1 am not at 
 sil}. confeious I did) the amufement his'miftaken 
 rcafoning has afforded me, would have quickly 
 put me into a good temper. As to what folkl^vs, 
 that his intention was *^ to promote a pradHcal 
 *' regard to a divine infiitution ;*' I need not 
 take pains to convince you j my friend, that this 
 is my intention alio in making thefe remarks up- 
 on his performance •, though I can by no means 
 agree with him that Infant Baptiim is a divine 
 invitation. His very ferious requeft to thofe o^ 
 a contrary opinion to him, I feel myfclf perfect- 
 
8 Introdu5lcry Remarks, 
 
 \y inclined to comply with ; and, having put the 
 queftion he propofes, confcientioufly reply in his 
 own words — That '* I am defirous to know 
 *' and do the will of God in this matter." And, 
 as I am not one of thofe ^* who refolutely detet*- 
 *' mine to perfift in their opinion, in fpite of all 
 *' evidence, and who turn the fcripture-dO(^fin6 
 ^' of Baptifm into mere matter of vain jangling" 
 (a fufpicion which no candid author fliould ha- 
 ilily admit concerning any of his readers) I have 
 Mr. AJ's allowance *' to proceed ."^ The very 
 proper directions he has given, as to the manner 
 of confidering his treatife, I am perfuaded you 
 approve J and h«pe. Sir, when you, afTiftcd 
 by thofe directions, have weighed his reafons and 
 Kiy remarks upon them, you will be difpofed " to 
 *'' embrace," as Mr. J, well exprefierit, ** that 
 '* opinion wbich appears to you, on mature 
 <^ thought and impartial inquiry, beft fupported 
 «' by found reafon, credible teftimony, and the 
 *» word of God." 
 
 To his Advertifement-our Author has annexed 
 a P. S. in which he has thrown out what he 
 calls a prefumptive argument in favour of Infant 
 Baptifm, and which his imagination feems to 
 have fuggefted to him when he had finiflied his 
 work. By a prefumptive argument here, I fup- 
 pofe Mr. A. means an argument arifing out of 
 the utility and fitnefe of Infant Baptifm, diftincSt 
 
 from 
 
Introdu5Imy Rejnarks; g 
 
 from the confideration of its being a pofitive in- 
 ftitution. The queftion, therefore, whether it 
 is or it is not of divine authority, is here for a 
 wioment to be held out of view. And now whae 
 is Mr. J:s reafoningf It is this — " The birth 
 *' of a child is an event of great importance to a 
 *' family, and it muit appear a parent's duty, it 
 '* cannot "but be a pious parent's inclination^ 
 *■' early to devote his children to God through 
 *'■ Chriftj exprcfTing his fervent defires that they 
 "" may partake with himfelf, of the blefTings of 
 *-' the chriiiian covenant." AM this, Sir, is very 
 true, and 1 fuppofe there is no Baptift but would 
 readily afTent to it. But what is Mr. yf.'s con- 
 fequence ? '^' Therefore we feem to need fuch a 
 ^' rite as this." If by need he means,, that we 
 cnnnot devote our children to God through Chrift', 
 orexprefs our fervent defires, &c. without fprink- 
 ling them j and if that were a real fa£t, his rea- 
 foning would be juftr. But I fuppofe his mean'- 
 ing is, either that there is a peculiar fitnefs in thrs 
 ceremony to exprefs our dedication- of them tb 
 God ; or that, if it were omitted, moft people would- 
 feel the want of fome fuch rite in its room. 
 Now, as to the fitnefs of this cerem.ony to ex- 
 prefs the dedication of our children to God, I 
 acknowledge r cannot perceive it : or if I could, 
 that argument would have juft the fame weight 
 with me in favour of Infant Baptifm, that trie 
 fitnefs of the crgfs in- Baptifm, to exprefs the- 
 B 5 chai- 
 
ro Untroduolcry Remarks. 
 
 character of a difciple of Chrift, would have with 
 Mr. J. in favour of. that ceremony. And as la 
 the general idea of mod peoptes apprehending 
 fbme fuch ceremony to be wanting^ to children, 
 it is a very fallacious kind of argument : it does 
 not arife out of the reafon and nature of th© 
 thing itfelf, but out of a prejudice confirmed by 
 long and general cuflom. To reafon, tlicreforcy 
 after this manner, is jufl the fame as if a Papiti 
 were to fay, it is a ftrong prefumptive argument 
 in favour of extreme unclion, that mod people 
 Jee?n to 7ieed fuch a rits as this. The truth is, as 
 Ml. A. well exprefTes it with regard to the Jews, 
 " Having been taught a religious regard to an- 
 •^^ cient ceremonies from their infancy, and hav- 
 " ing performed them many years as divine 
 " rites, they were unwilling intiiely to lay them 
 *^ afide {-g)'' There are Tome Poedobaptifls, 
 Sir, if I am not miftaken, who fpeak of bringing 
 their children into covenant by Ea^tlfm. Now, 
 if there were any iitnefs in the inilitutdoo to that 
 €nd, I confefs there would be great need of fuch 
 a rite. But Mr. A, has not thus exprefled him- 
 felf in the paflage before us, '^r^^ therefore it is 
 not my bufmefs to difcufs that point here. 
 
 And now, after what has been faid to inva* 
 lidate our Author's prefumptive argument in favour 
 i>f Infant Baptifm, would you expedl. Sir, to fee 
 
 <gy Page II' 
 
Tntro'duilorf Remarks, xi 
 
 me confronted with tny own brethren ? Yet fucli- 
 is my unhaippinefs F *' This argument," fays he, 
 " appears to receive additional ilrength from the 
 *"' pradice of cur Baptift brethren, (many of 
 *' them at leaftj v^'ho, feeling the need, pro- 
 *' priety, and ufefulnefs of fome fuch rite^s we 
 *' fuppofe Infant Baptifm to be, have invented 
 *' one of their own, which nearly refembles it^ 
 *' excepting in the ceremonial part of it." I 
 would not be too critical, Sir, but there feems tb 
 me, I acknowledge, fomething odd in the con- 
 ceit of" ^7 riie that refernhles cnoih^r rite^ excrpting /?«.• 
 ■the ceremonial part of that rit-e. This founds a lit- 
 tle like, a rite that has nothing of a rite in i^ 
 But be that as it may, let us inquire how the 
 matter (lands, I fuppofe Mr. J. refers to tha 
 practice of fome pious parents among the Bap- 
 tirts, who, upon the birth of a child, call in their 
 chriftian friends,, to aflift them " in devoting- 
 " (to ufe our Author's -own words above) their 
 <•* children to God through Chrift ; and' in ex-^ 
 *' prefling tlieir fervent defires that they may 
 " partake,, with themfelves, of the blefTings of 
 " the Chriftian covenant." 'Now what is there 
 in all th^'s that gives the leaft countenance to 
 Mr. yf.'s opinion of their Jleming to -tieecl fuch a 
 rite as infant fprinkling ?• Whatever ref^mblance 
 there may be betvv'een this pra£lice of theirs, and 
 that of their Poedobaptifl brethren, he himfelf 
 fa-ys that they do not conform to the c^rcmcnial 
 B 6 ^avt I 
 
iz Introdnftory Remarks, 
 
 part : and if they do not, what is this but a plaia 
 declaration on their part thati they, do not need fuch 
 ceremony? And if this, by his own confcilion, is 
 the language of their pra6^ice, as well as their 
 doctrine, how is it that by fuch pr^<5tice they 
 add ftrength. to his argument r Befides, if there 
 were any thing in this reafoning, our Author 
 himfelf admits that this is not a general practlee 
 among the Baptifts. And I hope thofe miniflers*, 
 who think it their duty to aflift on thefe occa^ 
 fions, do confcientioufly avoid (and I know It to 
 be true of many of them) every thing that looks 
 like eilabliiliing one rite in the room of another. 
 I have only to obferve farther, that it is a little 
 ilrange Mr. A, fhould call this pradice of theif.s 
 a rite of their cwn, fince he cannot, but be fen>- 
 fible that it is clearly warranted, by that general 
 exhortation of the apoftle. In every thing by prayer 
 and fuppU cation zvith thank/giving^ let your requejis 
 he made known unto God.(h),. 
 
 . Thus, Sir, I have followed Mr. J, through 
 his Dedication, Advertifement, and ^Poftfcript^,. 
 and you may perhaps fhortly receive fome farther 
 itmarks on the book itfelf, from. Sir, 
 
 Your humble Serv«ant, 
 
 (h) PhJl.'Iy. 6. 
 
 L E T- 
 
[ i 3 J 
 
 LETTER ir. 
 
 'Dear S i r-, 
 
 OU R author dlvifcles his work into i^fs 
 parts. In the firft, he confiders the mock 
 6r maiiner of adftiiniJirlngChrijiianBaptifTn', and ia 
 the fecond, the fuhjc^s of it. We begin with 
 the former, and fliall. at prefent confine our- 
 felves to his firfl chapter, wherein he treat3 
 of the nature and perpetuity of Chrifiian Baptfrn^^ 
 and the perfons by whom it is. to. he adminiflered. 
 As we agree with him in the two laft points, 
 refpecting the perpetuity of this ordinance, and 
 the perfons appointed to adminifter it, our chief 
 .bufmefs here will be to examine what he has to 
 offer conceriiing the nature and intent of this 
 
 ii^ftitution (a)^ 
 
 He 
 
 {a) Though Ipafs over what Mr. A. fa^s concerning 
 the perpetuity of Chriftlan Baptilm,. it may not be sm!is 
 to make a remark, in a note, upon the very proper anfwer 
 he gives, page the fifth, to an objc^ion darted againft it. 
 " Some, fays he,, have indeed fuppofed that Baptifm was 
 ** adopted by Chrift, and- pradifed by his apollles, as, .a 
 " temporary, accommodation to the genius aad cuftoius 
 M of the Jews, who had been ufed to profelyte-baptifm 
 ** and many other wafliings, in, and before tl^e time of 
 
 *• our 
 
t4 ^^s Nature and Intent 
 
 He fets out with giving us our Saviour's com- 
 miflion to his firft miniftcrs j and having obfcrved 
 that " they accordingly adminiftered and recom- 
 *' mended this ordinance, not for ihe putting 
 *' away of the filth of the flefh, but the anfwer 
 ** of a good confcience towards God ; and that 
 ^' the apoille Paul fpeaks of baptized Chriftians- 
 *' as havkig put on Chnfl, and as being all bap- 
 *' tized into one body;'* he tells us, that " from- 
 *' thefe and other fimilar reprefentations of 
 "•' Chriftian Baptifm in the New Teftament, it 
 "** feems an ordinance intended to fignify the fepara^ 
 ** iion of the d'lfciples of Chr'ifl from an unhelievlrt^ 
 •' and finful world , to be a peculiar people to the 
 *' Lord\2.rA is to be Qon\\^Q':G(i ?.s an outward 
 *' fp.al or token of the covenant of grace ^ and of God'' s^ 
 '* receiving his people into thai covenant^ and bejhw' 
 *' />;^ upon them all its invaluable bleffings (^)." 
 
 Now, in this account of the nature aTid intent 
 ©f the inflitution, Mr. ^. confid&rs Baptifm either 
 as having refpecl to the chara6ier or proFeIi]/(>n 
 of the perfon baptized; or elfe merely as a fign 
 
 *' onr Saviour. But if fo, they would, more pi'obabiy, 
 ** have confined it to Jew iil>. converts. Yet their Lord's- 
 *^ command was to baptize all nations." From hence, it 
 fliould feem,. he gives up the point refpeiSting profiilyte- 
 baplifm among the Jews. Yet he introduces that ai;^u- 
 ment towards the dole of the book, where 1. fliall fpealc 
 more largely of it. 
 
 {I), P. I, z. 
 
of Cbrfjlim Bapiifm, i-J- 
 
 or token of the truths tbenifclvcs cxprefTcd in hi* 
 <3efinition, and without any reference of them 
 at all to the perfons baptized. It is indeed diffi- 
 cult to afcertain his precife meaning: that we 
 may not, however, miftake him; we wi'il exa- 
 mine his reafoning in- each of tliefe views. 
 
 I. If Mr. A: confiders Baptifm as having r-e* 
 fpeiSl to the eharacler or profeffion of the perfon 
 baptized, let us fee hov/ his account of the mat- 
 ter will apply to the infant-feed of believers', 
 whom he judges to be the proper fubje£Vs of this 
 inilitution. It fcems^ he fays, an ordinance in'" 
 tended tofigmfy the feparation of the difclpies of Chrifi 
 from an unbelieving and fnful world^ to be a peculiar 
 people to the Lord, This account of Baptifm is, 
 unqueftionably, very fenfible and proper wheii' 
 applied to believers themfelves: for they, having 
 become the difciples of Ghrift by believing on 
 Him, do by Baptifm folemnly profcfs their hav- 
 ing feparated themfelves from an unbelieving 
 and finful world, to be a peculiar people to the 
 Lord. And this view of the intent of Baptifm, 
 with refpe<St to them, very well agrees wich the- 
 pafiages our Author had juft before cited, and 
 on which he grounds his definition; particularly 
 thofe which defcribe them as having put cq* 
 Chrlft, and as becoming members of his myili- 
 eal body. But how does it apply to infants? 
 lo Baptifm a fign or token of their feparation,. 
 
 ^,1 
 
' j6 "The Nature and In lent 
 
 kc.l If it be, what proof, or what appearance 
 ©f proof, have we of fuch feparation? They do 
 not tell us they have feparated thcmfelves, for 
 of that they are incapable. God has no where 
 told us that He has feparateJ this or the other 
 infant to Himfclf. Nor will their parents {ivf, 
 that they have in any other way feparated thcni 
 th?.n by their wiflaes and prayers. And as to 
 Baptifm itfelf it has no efHcacy in it to fcparate 
 them, as Mr. J, himfelf acknowledges, when 
 he tells us that baptifm is not regeneration : bc^ 
 fides, if it had aiiy fuch efficacy 'm it to that end, 
 it would be the inftrument, not thefign or token, 
 of their feparation. Of what then is Baptifm a. 
 fign or token as to infants? of nothing — of no 
 change in their ftate and condition, that hath 
 taken place either before or at their Baptifm.— 
 1 would here obferve farther, that Mr. y/.'s ac- 
 count of the matter fuppofes them difciplcs of 
 Chrift before Baptifm : v/hich feems flrange, fmce 
 moft defenders of Infant-Baptifm^ in order tt) 
 evade the force of the argument arifing from our 
 Lord's commiffion to teach firft and baptize 
 afterwards, tell us his meaning is that pcrfons 
 are to be difcipled by being baptized j and this 
 feems to be Mr. y/.'s own fenfe of the pafiage, 
 as he has given this interpretation to the word 
 
 (f) S.CC p. 11 Q, § 2. 
 
 But 
 
- ef Chriftian Baptifm» 17 
 
 But, if this account of the nature and intent 
 of Baptifm will not apply to infants, let us fee 
 whether that will which he gives us in the latter 
 claufe of the fentence. *' // Is to be coyifiihrcd\ 
 he tells us, *' as an outward feal or token of the 
 " covenant of God's grace ^ and of his receiving his 
 *' people into that covenant^ and be/f owing upon them 
 *' all its invaluable blejfings" I fliall not ftay 
 here to inquire upon what grounds Baptifm is to 
 be confidercd as a feal or token of the sovenailt; 
 but only obferve, that this idea of it is not war- 
 ranted by thofe paflages of 'fcripturr'eiiV Au-*^ 
 thor had juft cited, and from whence" he in- 
 fers this his account of the nature of this' ordi- 
 nance J for in them there is no mention made? 
 of any covenant, much lefs of Baptifm as the 
 feal of it. Nor is it deducible from any " other 
 *' fimilar reprefentations of Chriftian Baptifm,'* 
 that I can recollea, <' in the New Tefta- 
 *' ment." But we will, for the prefent, ad- 
 mit that it is a feal or token of the covenant. 
 Let us fee then, from Mr. y^.'s account of this 
 covenant, with what propriety the feal of i-t is to 
 be applied to infants. If it be inquired, what- it is 
 that God engages in this covenant to beftoW.^ 
 Mr. y/. replies, " all the bleffings of his love 
 " both here and hereafter." If it be afked, who 
 are the perfons on whom He beftows thefe bleff- 
 ings? Mr. A. anfwers, " his people, thofe who 
 " are born of water and the Spirit, the regene- 
 
 " rate* 
 
1 8" ^be Nature and Intent 
 
 '•^ rate, and the heirs of promife (d)J^ And 
 \^ it be farther queflioned, how Baptifm becomes 
 * (eal of tin's covenant ? He plainly tells us, 
 *^ not as procurin.g a title to the inheritance of 
 .** the faints, or as having any infiuence to efie6l 
 ** a change upon the baptized, but merely as it 
 ** is an external token or memorial of regenera- 
 •* tion (^)." In which fenfe, hefays, that phrafe, 
 the wajhlng of regenemUGn^ if it refers to Baptifm, 
 is; to be underftood,. That 'ordinance is not rege- 
 neration, *' but a niemorial of it.'.' — I [hall not ftay 
 here to confider the arguments with which he re- 
 futes the opinion of thofe, and particularly of the 
 Chriftian fathers, who confounded Baptifm and 
 regeneration, as upon this matter v/e are agreed. 
 But you will allow me, Sir, ji^il to obferve, as 
 I pafs on, , that if the fathers, and that in a v.ery 
 early age^ yi^i^ capable of falling into fo grofs 
 an error, it is not at aH to be wondered at that 
 they (liould miftake the point, as to the proper 
 
 fubjc6ts of Baptifm.- But to return, we have 
 
 feen what is our Author's account of the cove- 
 nant of griice. Now, admitting that Baptifm '\% 
 the ical of it, how does it follow that infants^ 
 yea the infant-feed of believers, are the perfons 
 to whom that feal ought to be applied ? Do 
 they anfwcr to the defcription he has given 
 of the fubjc<fls or parties of this covenant? Are 
 they the people of God ] Are they the regene- 
 
 ^/;?.z, 3. (0 l^>id. 
 
 rater 
 
of Chriftian Baptifm. j^ 
 
 rate? Are they indifcriminately the heirs of that 
 pro-life which includes in it, as he tells us, all 
 the bleflings of God's love both here and here- 
 after? If they are, if the fcripturcs any where 
 fay they are, or if there be any diflinguifhing 
 marks or appearances upon the children of be- 
 lievers, which furniili any the lead credible or 
 probable proof of it ; then it follows upon 
 Mr. y/.'s view of baptifm as a feal, that it ought 
 to be adminiftered to them, tut, on the con- 
 trary, if this is not the cafe, it follows from our 
 Author's own idea of the nature and intent of 
 Baptifni, that infants have no right to it. But, 
 that I may not be charged with mifcaklng his- 
 . meaning, 1 will now, 
 
 2. Inquire into the fo ret; of his reafoning, 
 upon a fuppofition, that he confiders Baptifiii 
 inerely as a fign or token of the truths them- 
 fclves exprefled in his definition, without any re- 
 ference of thofe truths to the perfons bnptized. 
 That this is his meaning feerns probable from 
 his ftiling Baptifm a " memorial" of this truth, 
 '' that without renovation of he^irt no one {hall 
 " fee God," and his fpeaking of it as an ordi- 
 nance '^ conne£led with that of preaching (f).'* 
 And if this be his view of Baptifm, it is fimilar 
 to theirs who eonfider the Lord's Supper merely 
 as a reprefentation or memorial of the fa6l of our 
 
 Lord 3 
 
'20 I'he Nature and Intent 
 
 Lord's death and fufFeringSj and as Intended fa 
 preferve alive the remembrance of that event in 
 the world, without any regard to the chara(5lers 
 of thofe who partake of it, or any obligation it is 
 fuppofed to lay upon them. — 'Nov/, if this be hfs 
 idea of Baptifm, it Is totally indifferent, in regard 
 to the ufe or intent of it, to whom or to what 
 it is admlniftered. Be the baptized who they 
 may, old or young, regenerate or unregenerate^ 
 jielievcrs or infidels-; or be the thing what it will 
 that is baptized, the end is anfwered ; for the 
 ceremony is a public declaration to all men, that 
 whoever is faved mull be fprinkled with the blood 
 of Chrid, and be renewed by the wafhing of re- 
 generation. But furely this notion, as it ap- 
 pears upon the firft view of it to be vain and 
 jHugatory, hath no foundation in fcripture. 
 The New Teftament, it is well known, every 
 where fpeaks of a fubmiflion to this ordinance, 
 as expreflive of the faith of him who is baptized 
 in Chrift the Son of God, of his being- buried 
 with Chrift, of his riling with Him to newnefs 
 of life, of his putting on Chrift, of his incor- 
 poration with Him, and of his concern by Bap- 
 tifm to anfwer a good confcience towards God. 
 And the apoftles reafon, with thofe converts 
 whom they had baptized, upon the perfonal ob- 
 ligations they hereby laid themfelves under to a 
 
 holy life and converfation. But I (iiall take 
 
 no farther pains to obviate this miftaken notion, 
 
 fuice^ 
 
cf Chrifiian Bapiifjn, 2 1 
 
 iincc, however Mr. J, has fo exprefied himfelf 
 in this chapter as that his account of the nature 
 and intent of Baptifm will admit of fuch a fenfe, 
 the kind of reafoning he afterwards adopts in- 
 clines me to think it cannot be his opinion. 
 
 I arin. 
 
 Sir^ ^c. 
 
 LET. 
 
:'f' 22 ] 
 
 LETTER Iir. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 WE now go on to Mr. J.'s fecond chap- 
 ter, in which he treats of Names and 
 Ceremonies in general^ and the Rite of Immcrfmi in 
 particular. In his firft fedlion he gives us the 
 etymology of the names Pcedo — Antipoedo — and 
 Ana-baptifts. Upon which I fhall only obfcrve, 
 that, -as to the laft of thefe names, the Baptifts 
 confider it as a term of reproach, fmce they ut- 
 terly difapprove of the repetition of Baptifm ; 
 and, if they at any time do baptize thofe who 
 have been fprinkled in their infancy, they do it 
 upon a firm perfuafion that fprinkling and bap- 
 tizing are two diftinc^ things, and of a nature 
 
 totally different from each other. As to what 
 
 follows, refpeding the unhappy quarrels which 
 have arifen out of an undue attachment to par- 
 ticular names, I moil heartily join with our 
 Author in lamenting thofe evils. There may 
 have been, I am ready to acknowledge, too much 
 warmth on that fide of the queftion for which 
 I am an advocate; but Mr. //. will alfo admit 
 that the Baptifts have received a kind of chaftife- 
 mcnt from other jpens, if not from his, which 
 
 the 
 
Groundlefs Preftmptions &c.- 23 
 the meeknefs and candor he very prop^erly re^ 
 commends, will fcarce jiiftify* So that, if the 
 account remains to be fettled, they m-ay pofTibly 
 have fome fmall demand to make upon their op- 
 ponents, which iyetiLhope they are fincidrely 
 willing to remit. 
 
 Mr. A.'s willingnefs, I charitably fuppofe, 16 
 allay thefe heats, hath haftily led him, in his 
 fecond fe^Stion, into a conceffion upon the point 
 of indifference as to the particular mode of bap- 
 tizing, which I know not how to reconcile with 
 the general tenor of his argument. Ke tells 
 us that '• our divine Mafter hath not abfo- 
 '' lutely fixed the mode of adminiftering water 
 " in this ordinance {a)'' By which it fhould 
 feem he means, that the queftion is \th wholl/ 
 ^undecided, an.d that we are at liberty to pradice 
 ,which form we pleafe. And yet he felfcwhere 
 tells us, on the one hand, that '' he cannot find 
 '^ a Angle paflage, in the v;hole book of God, 
 *' in which the immerfion of the v/hole body is 
 " required in this ordinance [b] j" and on the 
 other,, that ^' fpri^nkling or pouring water js the 
 ^\. .ancient or fcriptural mode of baptizing (<:)—» 
 the point he every where labours to prove. 
 Surely then our Lord has abfolutely fixed the 
 mode. And as this feem's to be our Author's 
 <lear opinion (however he contraditSts himfelf) 
 
 ■(«)P.ri. (i)P. 13. §3. (OP. 23. 
 
 the 
 
3.4- Gronndlefs Prefumptions againft 
 the pains he immediately takes to expofe the zeal 
 of Jewifli' and Gentile converts for ceremonies 
 repealed and laid afide, and for matters perfectly 
 indifferent in th^mfelves, are to no purpofe at all 
 in the prefent argument: for how is an attach- 
 ment to what is required, deferving of the fame 
 cenfure with an attachment to what is not re- 
 quired ? If indeed the faiSt had been as Mr. A. 
 had exprelTed it, tho' undefignedly, that Chrift has 
 not fixed the mode of Baptifm ; then, his zeal for 
 fprinkling, and mine for immerfion, would have 
 clearly brought us both within the defcription of 
 the.v/eak and fcrupulous Corinthians, whofe cafe 
 iie afterwards cites : though even then we fhould 
 not have been equally criminal with thofe others 
 he refers to, v.ho were fond of introducing an- 
 cient ceremonies which had been exprefbly laid 
 afide. - But, if we take the matter the other way, 
 ;ind fay that fcripture has determined the mode, 
 which is our Author's opinion as well as mine ; 
 then, the cafes he has cited are none of them in 
 point as to either of us.— So far, however, as 
 he means to correft a luxuriant zeal, and to per- 
 fuade Chriflians to proportion their warmth to 
 the importance of the matter for which they con- 
 tend, I mofl heartily agree with hLra. 
 
 I 
 
 But, before I difmifs this fubje6i:, give me leave. 
 
 Sir, to take notice of the too frequent abufe of the 
 term Indiffersms^ when applied to the dodirines 
 
the Fra^ite of Immerjton. 25 
 
 and precepts of religion. It cannot with pro- 
 priety be affirmed of any truth or duty, that it is 
 in itfelf indifferent, unlefs we will fay that a 
 propofition may be true and falfe, or a duty 
 binding and not binding, at the fame time. The 
 term has refpeil to the importance of any mat- 
 ter j and in this view of it we may very properly 
 fay of a thing, that it is indifferent, as not being 
 of the fame confequence with fome other thing 
 of greater moment, with which it is compared. 
 So, as to Baptifm, if the fcriptures have fixed 
 the mode, it is abfuid to fay the mode is in- 
 dlfTeren't : nor do I know hov/ we can wantonly 
 depart from it without afFronting the authority 
 of Chrift the great Legiflator, and opening the 
 door to a thoufand innovations in religion of very 
 dangerous confequence. But when we confider 
 Baptifm in reference to its importance, we fay 
 right that it is a matter of indifference, in com- 
 parifon with the much weightier concerns of re- 
 ligion, fuch as faith, judgment, and mercy. 
 
 To return. Mr. yf.'s laft fe6tion contains 2 
 collection of general arguments againft immer- 
 fion, taken from the fuppofed Indecency^ Pain* 
 fulnefs^ and in fome places Impra5licahility of it: 
 all which are introduced with an affurance, " that 
 " he cannot find one paffage in the whole book 
 *' of God that requires the immerfion of the 
 *' whole body in water." In what a pitiable 
 C Hate 
 
S.6 Grcundlefs Prefumptions againfl 
 
 ftate then muft the Baptifts be! — without one 
 icripture to warrant their pradlice, and the united 
 fuffrages of decency, good-nature, and common- 
 i^n^Q againft it. Sure, Sir, thefe Baptifts muft 
 be a fet of the moft filly, obftinate, ill-natured 
 people in the whole world. But what if it 
 ihould be found in the fequel that the Baptifts 
 have many paflages to produce in favour of im- 
 •merfion 1 fome of them fo clear as to obi ige fevcral 
 very learned Poedobaptifts to acknowledge, that 
 ihat was moft certainly the primitive mode; and 
 all of them fo unyielding even to Mr. A.'s own 
 pen, as to fubjed: them to the torture of near 
 thirty pages ! And what if it ftiould alfo be 
 found that he has not produced either one pre- 
 cept, or one example, to authorize Baptifm by 
 fprinkling! In that cafe, I fancy, Sir, j'ou will 
 agree with me, that though it is not quite fo 
 generous in our Author, at the outfet, to repre- 
 fent the Baptifts as oftending againft the rules 
 of modefty, and laying a yoke upon the difciples 
 of Chrift too grievous to be borne ; yet, that fuch 
 a kind of appeal to the paflions of weak perfons, 
 and particularly to the delicacy of the tender fex, 
 is prudent, and fhews him to be well fkilled in the 
 arts of controverfy. Thefe illiberal refle6lions 
 on the pra61ice of immerfion, are fo frequently 
 thrown out by fome fort of writers on this fub- 
 ^jed, that I am fure they may be ftiled, as Mr. A. 
 fomewhere exprefies it, '' hackney'd obferva- 
 
 *' tionsi" 
 
ihe Prague of Immerfwn, 27 
 
 *^ tions;" though I will not fay he is " an ill- 
 *' natured retailer of them (^j," fince lam ra- 
 ther inclined to think the weaknefs of the caufe 
 he was defending rendered them in fome fort 
 neceflary. 
 
 And now, what is our Author's reafoning 
 upon thefe trite and invidious topics of argu- 
 ment? Havino; told us that " immerfion was 
 " not the ufual manner of wafhing with water 
 *' under the Mofaic difpenfation," (afacl which 
 IMr. A, can fcarce expect we fliould credit upon. 
 his bare afiertion, and which, as it is only 
 thrown out here occafionally, I fnall refer to 
 after confideration) having, I fay, aflerted this, 
 he adds, " But if immerfion had been the ufual 
 *' manner, we cannot think that Jefus would 
 " have enjoined it upon his followers in all ages 
 " and nations.'* And why? — *' Becaufe fuch 
 *' an indecent and grievous practice would have 
 '' very ill become the condefcending regard the 
 *' merciful Jefus was ufed to pay to the genius and 
 *' cuftoms of the people among whom He lived j" 
 and does by no means confift with the cautions 
 his Apoftles afterwards direded to Chriftians, 
 " to give none offence^ either to Jeiv or Gentile, or 
 *' the church of God (^)". Our Saviour's *con- 
 defcending compliance with the indifferent ufages 
 of the Jews is not to be queftioned, nor will, 
 
 (^; Dedicat. p. 6. (^) P. 13. § 3. 
 
 C 2 I fup- 
 
2 8 Groundlefs .Prefumptions againft 
 
 I fuppofe, any fober man deny that we ought to 
 avoid giving jufl: caufe of offence to any. But, 
 if the cudoms and prejudices of the people in 
 general are to be confulted, in order to our de- 
 termining whether this or that inftitution be of 
 divine authority ; I fear Mr. A, will find himfelf 
 obliged to renounce his profeflion as a Diflenter, 
 and reconcile himfelf to the church of England^ 
 if not that of Rome. His argument therefore 
 hath no weight in it, unlefs the practice of im- 
 merfion is really indecent^ and fo a violation of the 
 law of nature; or \' try grievous ^ and fo fcarce 
 practicable. Each of thefe charges, however, he 
 fets himfelf with a very good will to prove. 
 
 Indeed, as to the charge oi Indecency^ we are 
 obliged to our Author for a conceflion at fetting 
 out, which (though I hardly know how to re- 
 concile it with what he had faid a few lines be- 
 fore) in a good meafure takes off the imputation 
 of immodefty he would fain fix upon it. " The 
 " ufual methods, fays he, of baptizing by im" 
 *' merfion might not, perhaps, eighteen hundred 
 " years ago, be offenfive in Judea." He had told 
 us juft before that " immerhon was not the ufual 
 *' manner of wafhing with water under theMo- 
 " faic difpenfation (/)." But now it fliould feem 
 it was, and that Mr. A, has changed his mind 
 upon that point. Or, if his meaning is that the 
 
 prefent 
 
the Prague of Immerfwn, 29 
 
 prefent ufual methbd -of baptizing by immerfion, 
 had it been pra6lircd at that time, might not be 
 ofFenfive, that is, deemed indecent; ftill he ad- 
 mits that that method is not in itfelf indecent, 
 and of confequence that this prefumption of his 
 againft it is groundleis. But I will go farther 
 than our Author, and hy^ that immerfion not 
 only 7mght then be, but that it actually was^ 
 pra6tired with decency. Jofephus^ m his account 
 of the EJfenes^ a feet remarkable for their modefty, 
 defcribes particularly the manner in which they 
 bathed themfelves every day before dinner. Hav- 
 ing related how they employ themfelves all the 
 morning at their trades, he tells us, that at a 
 certain hour they again afTen-ible in one place, 
 andy having drejjed ihemfelves In limn ckaihes^ they 
 thus wajh their bodies in cold water (g). 
 
 Mr. J. goes on, ** nor can we fay that the 
 *^ method of baptizing by immerfion, would cif- 
 *' gufl: the uncultivated and uncloathed inhabitants 
 *' of the fouth of Africa even now." So that, 
 upon the whole, he is of opinion it might be in- 
 ofFenfive enough in Judaea and Africa. — " But 
 it is very certain'* (and here comes in a charge 
 againft the Baptifts, which like a mighty mill- 
 ftone is to fink their dodlrine, and with it their 
 
 (gj — ^aa-AiMvoi TS aiti'7ra,<riJ.A(7t hiycti, «t&'^ attO' 
 
 >\.iiOp]ctl TO (TCO^ct '4'V)^pOli Vcf'AtTf* 
 
 Jofeph. deBel. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 8. Edit. Hudfon. 
 C 3 repu- 
 
C( 
 
 tc 
 
 30 Gromdlefs Prefumptions againji 
 
 reputation too, fo as never any more, in the 
 opinion of modeft and virtuous perfons, to rife 
 agavi) " it is very certain, that the cufiom of 
 *' publlckly plunging mixed multitudes of men 
 ** and women, either naked (as Tome have done) 
 or in thin veftments, or in their ufual drefs, 
 is accounted an indecency by many in more 
 *« civilized nations (h),^* I fuppofe a common 
 reader, who happened to be unacquainted with 
 the Baptifts, would conclude from this repre- 
 fentation of them, that it is their cufiom pub- 
 lickly to plunge mixed multitudes of men and 
 women naked, or in fuch thin veftments as ren- 
 der their manner of baptizing very indecent. 
 And yet the fentence is fo conftrudled, I will 
 not fay dcfignedly, as to enable our Author to 
 ehide the cenfure of mifreprefentation. For, if 
 it be denied that they baptize perfons naked, or 
 in thin garments, he has flill to reply that his 
 charge is, that they plunge perfons either naked, 
 #r in thin veftnients, or in their ufual drefs. So 
 that if they difprove the two former charges, the 
 latter remains true. Yet it is plain from the 
 connexion of the fentence with what he had faid 
 jud before of the /wJ^^jfW Africans, and with 
 what immediately follows concerning bath'ingy 
 that he meant to fix the imputation of great in- 
 decency upon their mode of baptizing. 
 ;•-. ., fic verts falfa remifcet, 
 
 (h) P. ,3. §3. 
 
 Let 
 
the Pra5iice of Immerfion, 31 
 
 Let us therefore fpend a few words upon what 
 is thus infinuated to their difreputatlon. Will 
 our Author fay that it is their cuftom to plunge 
 mixed multitudes of men and women naked ? 
 No. — But '' this fome have done." Pray who are 
 thcfe perfons? Mr. J. would do well to tell us. 
 If, however, there were one or two fach per- 
 fons ; their condudlj which he cannot but know 
 the Baptifts in general v/ould deteft with horror,, 
 would admit of no conclufion unfavourahle to 
 immerfion, any more than the abufe of the Lord's 
 fupper among the Corinthians, would admit of aa 
 inference unfavourable to the ufe of wine in that 
 inilitution. — But is it their cuftom to baptize 
 perfons in fuch thin veftments, as render the 
 pradice immodeft ? I believe Mr. ^. himfelf, 
 if he has been ufed to attend any of thefe fo- 
 lemnities, will fcarce venture to aflert it. Or 
 if he has not attended any of them, thofe of his 
 friends or relaiiotis that have, if he will take the 
 pains to inquire of them, will fUfficiently inform 
 him to the contrary. Why then fliould he in- 
 fmuate, concerning his poor brethren the Baptifts, 
 that their pracftice, though it might not difguft 
 an uncloathed African, yet is indecent in this 
 civilized country ? For, after all, their practice 
 is found to be no other than that of immerfing 
 perfons in the water, in their ufual drefs (/). 
 
 And 
 
 (i) If Mr. A. had ever been at Bath^ Southajnpton. Sec. . 
 he would have known, that, for men. and women, pro- 
 
32 Groundlefs Prefmnpiions againjl 
 
 And is this to be accounted fuch an indecency, 
 as that " profefTing Chriftians in general, and 
 ** the women in particular, fhould be called upon 
 *' to fee to it that they have the authority of an 
 *' expreTs command of Chrift, before they fub- 
 " mit to be thus plunged in water, lefc they of- 
 *' fend forne, and give occafion to others to fpeak 
 *' evil of the gofpel, and of their divine Mafter ?" 
 Surely, Sir, fome of this warmth might be fpared. 
 Or, however, if there were a propriety in a cau- 
 tion of this kind to Chriftian men, there feems, 
 methinks, little occafion for fo folemn an addrefs 
 to the women 'i fince the natural delicacy and ten- 
 dernefs of their fex, Mr. J. mufl be fenfible from 
 the dread he himfelf feels at the idea of immer- 
 lion, wculd fcarce allow i/>^;;2 to fubmit toit,if that 
 siuthority he refers to had not had its due weight 
 with them. Nor need he remind them, " that 
 ** it is uncomely for a woman to pray to God un-^ 
 *' covered.'* They know it^ but cannot under- 
 ftand how it (hould from thence be infer'd, that 
 it is uncomely to follow their Mafter into his 
 grave, in their ufual drefs. Vile, indeed, they 
 may be in the eyes of fome few who contemptu- 
 oufly watch them from the window of a Michal ; 
 but that, 1 am perfuaded, gives them little un- 
 eafinefs, as they have not only the ark of the 
 
 pcrly cloathed, to bathe promifcuoufly, and in publick, 
 is not confidered as indecent by people in genera), in this 
 idund. 
 
 covenant 
 
the TraBice cf Immerfwn. 33 
 
 covenant with them, but alfo the teftlmony of 
 all fober fenfible fpedators, to the decency ob- 
 ferved on thefe folemn occafions. 
 
 But, if the plunging perfons in the water, ia 
 their ufual drefs, be not indecent, is not the 
 pra(flice of immerfion trkfome and painful? Our 
 Author is of opinion it is, and that " in many 
 " feafons and climates it is not only burdenfome, 
 *' but unfafe both to people and minifters; not 
 '' only diftreffing to the fpirits, but hazardous to 
 '* the conftitution : and therefore he cannot 
 " think that the tender and compafTionate Jefus, 
 " whofe yoke is eafy, and who exprefTcd a ten- 
 *' der regard to the lives and health of mankind 
 *' in general, and of his own difciples in par- 
 ** ticular, that he would uniyerfally require 
 " the performance of fuch a rite as this (d).''^ 
 If Mr. A. means no more by this, than that 
 Chrift would not have Baptifm adminiflercd 
 to any at the manifeft hazard of their lives,' 
 and that in all fuch inflances it fbouJd be for- 
 borne ; the Baptifts intirely agree with hiin, 
 and for the reafon he has mentioned, " be- 
 " caufe God will have mercy and not fiicri- 
 " fice." But if he would infer from the fup- 
 pofed unfafety, in fome inftances, of baptizing 
 by immerfion, that therefore it is not probable 
 that mode would be enjoined at all, his rcafon- 
 (d) Page 14, 15. 
 
 C 5 ing 
 
34 Groundkfs Prefumptions againfl 
 ing furely is not very conclufive. It is much as 
 if he were to fay upon the paflage juft before 
 cited, that becaufe facrificing was in feme in- 
 ftances injurious to a perfon, and upon that ac- 
 count not required, that therefore it is not ima* 
 ginable God would require men to facrifice at 
 all ; and that our Saviour's vindicating his fol- 
 lowers in breaking through a reftri6lion of the 
 Mofaic law, furnifhed a prefumptive argument 
 againfl the law itfelf. But who does not per- 
 ceive the weaknefs of fuch reafoning ? The con- 
 clufion indeed has feme force with refpedl to thofe 
 feafons and climates, in which immerfion is ma- 
 nifeftly unfafe and hazardous. But Mr. /I. muft 
 firfl: tell us what thofe feafons and climates are. 
 Is it at the manifeft hazard of mens lives, that they 
 at any feafon of the year bathe in this country ? 
 No furely. Prejudiced as people were formerly 
 againfl the practice of bathing, there were fen- 
 fible men, phyficians and others, who intirdy 
 approved of it *. But it is now, I believe, ge- 
 nerally 
 
 * Lord Bacon fays, *' It is ftrange that the ufe of bath- 
 ** ing, as a part of diet, is left. With the Romans and 
 *♦ Giaecinns it was as ufvial as eating or fleeping ; and 
 
 " To it is aniongft the Turks at this day ; " Nat. 
 
 Hid. Cent. VIII. Experiment 740, touching the ufe of 
 b.uhing. 
 
 Sir John Floyery an eminent phyfician, in an effivy wrote 
 by him about the beginning of this century, to prove cold 
 bathing both fafe and ufeful, gives an account of many 
 great cures done by it, and infcrts an alphabetical cata- 
 logue 
 
the FraEfue of Immerftcn, 35 
 
 nerally acknowledged, to be not only fafe but 
 ufeful. Many are baptized at all feafons of the 
 year ; nor have I yet heard of any one'§ fufFering 
 in his health thereby. Nay, in RufTia, a much 
 colder climate than this, it is well known that 
 Baptifm is univerfally adminiftered by immerfion. 
 What ground then for this cenfure upon the 
 Baptifts ; as if, void of that tendernefs and com- 
 panion which diftinguifhed their Mafter, they 
 were willijig to facrifice the health and lives of 
 their friends to their obftinate fingularity ? His 
 argument, therefore, from the fu|5pofed danger 
 of baptizing by immerfion, is totally Vv^ithout 
 foundation. 
 
 But it will ft ill be faid, if it be not unfafe, yet 
 it is fo grievous a rite, that we can fcarce pre- 
 fume the mild and gentle Jefus would enjoin it 
 upon his difciples. So then. Sir, its difagree- 
 ablenefs to flefh and blood is to be the criterion . 
 of a divine inftitution. Surely, if Abraham and 
 his defcendents had reafoned after this manner, , 
 
 logue of difeafes againft which it has been fuccefsful. I 
 the rather mention hiin, becaufe he takes occafion in the 
 courfe of this performance, to lament (for this veiy rea- 
 fon of the utility as well as fafety of bathing) the dii'ure of 
 Baptifmal immeifion in Englandjwhich, he fays, continued ^ 
 till about the year 1600 ; and obferves, that no fubje6> can 
 give a clearer evidence, how eafily new opinions can change 
 the bed and mod ancient pra6lices, both in religion and i 
 phyfick, than this, . 
 
 C. 6 thcyv 
 
^6 Groundlefs Prefumptlons agai}ijl 
 they would fcarce have admitted the painful 
 ceremony of circunicifion into their religion; or 
 however they v/ould have quickly changed it in-» 
 to one m.ore eafy and tolerable. But Mr. J, 
 aware of this objedion, tells us that the difpen- 
 fation of the gofpei Is mild and fpiritual. It is 
 fo ; yet, notwithftanding its mildnefs, it fubjedls 
 Chriftians to much greater inconveniencies, than 
 this fingle one of being immerfcd once in their 
 lives in the water. It requires them to denyihcm- 
 felves^ and take up their crofs^ and follow Chr'iji : and 
 what good man will fay that thefe precepts are 
 ajiy jufl imputation on the mildnefs of the Chrif- 
 tian inftitution ? But It will be replied, that 
 whatever is painful in thofe precepts arifes, not 
 out of the gofpei, but the oppofition it meets 
 with. True. And you will give me leave to 
 obferve alfo with refpe<51: to Baptifm, that the 
 chief of what is irkfome in it arifes, not out of 
 the inftitution Itfelf, but the contempt in which 
 it is generally held. Admitting, however, that 
 there is fomething dlfagreeable to nature in the 
 immerfion of the body in the water, that "It 
 " agitates the fpirits," and throws a kind of 
 gloom over the minds cf fpe£lators : yet thefe 
 circumftances, Inftead of being a real obje6tioii 
 to this mode of baptizing, do the more clearly 
 evince the iitnefs and propriety of It ; fince the 
 general intent of the ordinance is to exprefs our 
 
 death 
 
the P radii ce of Immerfion, ^7 
 
 death and burial with Chrift. And though it 
 may fo happen in fome few cafes (I fay few, be- 
 caufe I am fure fuch inftances arc not general) 
 that " the mind is difcompofed, and rendered 
 " unfit for the exercife of proper thoughts and 
 " afFedions j" yet that hurry of the fpirits is 
 very tranfient, and the moral and fpiritual pur- 
 pofes of the inftitution are not thereby defeated. 
 And after ail, the little imeafinefs which perfons 
 may be fuppofed to endure, is abundantly com- 
 penfated by the pleafure which arifes from the 
 anfwer of a good confcience towards God, and 
 the teftimony they hereby give of their fincere 
 
 aiFe61ion to Chrifl. As to what our Author 
 
 farther adds, concerning the impojjibility of ad- 
 miniftring the ordinance by immerfion in fome 
 countries for want of water, the obje(Stion is fo 
 idle, that it fcarce requires an anfwer. If, how- 
 ever, thofe travellers he fpeaks of, who cannot 
 get water to quench their thirft, happen to be 
 Pcedobaptifts, they will, I fuppofe, be at much 
 the fame lofs to get their children fprinkled, as 
 the Antipcedobaptifls to be immerfed. 
 
 I am afraid, Sir, I have wearied you with this 
 long letter ; and the rather as mofl of the argu- 
 ments advanced in this chapter are of fuch a 
 kind, that a confiderate reader can fcarce avoid 
 perceiving, at firft view, their weaknefs and fu- 
 5 tility. 
 
^8 Groundlefs Prefumptions^ 5rc. 
 
 tility. But, when you refledl that they are po-» 
 pular topics, and that, when addreffed to the 
 paflions, they have ufually a mighty efFei^:, you 
 will excufe my having taken thefe pains to ex- 
 pofe them. 
 
 lam. 
 
 Sir, &c. 
 
 LET- 
 
E 39 J 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 HAving confidercd our Author's prefumptlve 
 arguments againft immerfion, and {hewn 
 them to be totally groundlefs, we proceed now 
 to the main queftion, refpe(SlIng the true and 
 proper meaning of the word Baptize^ which is 
 the fubje6t of his third chapter. Mr. A. has not 
 indeed exprefsly told us, whether he thinks it 
 fignifies to wafh by fprinkling, or pouring 
 only J or to wafli, indifferently, either by fprink- 
 ling or plunging. It fliould feem, from the di- 
 ftin<ftion he makes between ^rirj/lco and (ioL^^Jt^a^. 
 from his fo clearly apprehending that fprinkling 
 was the ancient fcriptural mode, and from his 
 obferving concerning paiTages wherein Baptifm is^ 
 fpoken of, that there is not a word of immerfion 
 or dipping in them j it fhould feem, I fay, from 
 hence, that he is of opinion the word properly 
 and only fignifies to fprinkle, or to wafli by 
 fprinkling. And in that cafe he muft confider 
 thofe as violating our Saviour's command, who. 
 adminifter the ordinance by dipping. But I am. 
 rather inclined to think, from the general drift 
 5 of 
 
40 ^he meaning of the wcrd Baptize, 
 cf his reafoning, and particularly from his ar- 
 gument towards the clofe of this chapter, con- 
 cerning diverfe wajh'mgs^ that he underftands the 
 word in the latter fenfe, as fignifying to waJJj, 
 indifferently, t\t\\tv by plunging ox fprinkling : fo 
 that, whatever be the refult of the debate be- 
 tween him and me, you fee. Sir, our pradice of 
 immerfion is, upon his principles, fufficiently 
 juftified. On this ground, therefore, as confi- 
 dering the mode perfedly indifferent, I am to 
 meet him ; and to prove, on the contrary, that 
 the word Baptize^ properly and only fignifies 
 dipping.^ or fuch wajhing as includes dipping in it. 
 
 As Mr. J. apprehends the two words ^a.'Tfla 
 and ^tfjclt^eo differ in their fignification, it will 
 be proper, before we proceed, to confider what 
 he has to fay in fupport of this opinion, and to 
 fhew, on the contrary, that they are fynony- 
 mous. He tells us, that " all who are acquaint- 
 " ed with the original language of the New 
 *' Teftament, muft not only know that there is 
 *' a difference between primitive and derivative 
 •' words, but likewife that thofe in ^ty are fre- 
 *' quently diminutives; fo that as ^cL7r]co fignifies 
 " to wafh, ^'xrr\i^co is to wafh a little (d).** 
 Admitting, for a moment, that this criticifm of 
 Mr. A.'s were juft, it would not furely warrant 
 the confequence he draws from it. For how 
 
 (d) Page 17. 
 
 does 
 
ne meaning of the word Baptize. 41 
 does it follow from the verbs in ^co ht'ing fre- 
 quently diminitives, that the verb (icLTrl/^cc muft 
 be fo ? He fhould have firft proved that all the 
 verbs in (^eo are diminutives, and then his con- 
 clufion in this particular inftance would have 
 been juft. But I will venture to affirm, Sir, that 
 there are a vaft number of derivatives, and of 
 derivatives in ^a too, which fignify the fame as 
 their primitives. Wherefore our Author's af- 
 fertion, that ^dtrrli^co fignifies to wajh a little^ is 
 rather hafly and inconfiderate. Nay, fo far is 
 the word from being a diminitive, that fome 
 learned men have confidered it as a frequentative, 
 and fuppofed that it fignifies io dip over and over 
 again (f). So that in their opinion, it retains 
 precifely the fame fenfe of dipping, or of wafh- 
 ing by dipping, with its primitive ^et'Trla* This 
 will alfo clearly appear from the inftances I (hall 
 by and by refer to. To which I will add, that 
 fome of our moft confiderable opponents, by ar- 
 guing promifcuoufly from both words, feem to 
 admit that their meaning is fynonymous. Nor 
 yet do I wiQi, by confounding the two words, 
 to evade any argument drawn from the ufe of 
 either of them, that may feem at all unfavourable 
 to immerfion ; and fhall therefore attend to our 
 Author's reafoning on each of them feparately. 
 
 Cf) So Tertullian feems to have taken it, when he ren- 
 dered it by mergitarej as alfo VofTius and Stephens. 
 
 Let 
 
^2. ^'be meaning of the word Baptize. 
 
 Let us now proceed, firft, to confider what 
 Mr. A, has advanced in fupport of his fenfe of 
 the word Baptize ; and, fecondly, by a few plain 
 reafons to eflablifli that which I have given of 
 it. 
 
 First, as to Mr. J.'s fenfe of the word : he 
 feems to be of opinion, as I faid before, that it 
 iigm^ts to wafiy indifterently, either by plunging 
 or fpr inkling. And, 
 
 I. With refpea to /5«'t7&', he tells us, " It 
 *' has been often acknowledged that it fignifies 
 *' to zvajh in general, either by dipping, or in 
 *' any other way (g).^' As our Author admits 
 that it figniiies to waih by dippings fo far we are 
 agreed. But he infills that it fignifies alfo to 
 Wafh in any other way. Now what proof does 
 he give us of this ? Why, he tells us, that the 
 word " occurs in fome places where there is not 
 the leaf!: appearance of dipping (h).^* In fup- 
 port of this afTertion he has, however, produced 
 only one paiTage ; which, though he lays great 
 ftrefs upon it, v^ill, I am perfuaded upon ex- 
 amination, fail him. It is the ufe which the 
 Septuagint verfibn makes of the word /3st7r7<y in 
 the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v. 21. His 
 body WAS WET {'.CcL(r,\]) with the deiv of heaven. 
 Upon which he obferves that the word is here 
 
 (g) Page 17. (b) Ibid. 
 
 ufed 
 
^'he meaning of the word Baptize. 4^ 
 ufed " to defcrite the fall of the dew upon him 5 
 •' and that he was wet, wafhed, or baptized 
 *' with the dew, not as being plunged in it» 
 *' but as it diftilled, or h\\ in fmall drops upon 
 *' him (i).'^ But, with our Author's leave, the 
 word iCsiq)-,) is not ufed to defcribe the adtion of 
 the dew as diftilling or falling upon him, but to 
 cxprefs the ftate of Nebuchadnezzar's body, which 
 was, as it were, dipped or plunged in dew. Now 
 it is very remarkable, as Dr. Gale has largely 
 fhewn in his anfwer to Mr. TVall^ that the 
 original Chaldee word pillDK% which is 
 here rendered by iCatpv, neceflarily implies dip- 
 ping, as appears by the conftant ufe of the 
 word ; and that it is by this Chaldee word 
 the Jerufalem Targum renders the Hebrew 
 /H^, Lev. iv. 6. which alfo unqueftionably fig- 
 niiies to dip. So that Daniel himfelf chufing 
 to defcribe the irate Nebuchadnezzar v/as in, as 
 all over wet with dew, by his being, as it were^ 
 dipped in it; the Septuagint very properly tran- 
 flated the Chaldee original by iCct(p», From this 
 view of the pafiage, it appears evident to me, 
 that ^ct'7/]cey even here, retains its natural and 
 proper fenfe j or however that Mr. J. is too hafty- 
 in faying that '' there is not in this place the^ 
 *' leaft appearance of dipping." And after all^ 
 admitting that there is a difficulty in this pafTagc.,. 
 it is to be obferved that the word, in moil other 
 
 0) Page iS. 
 
 places 
 
^4 ^-^^ meaning of the word Baptize. 
 places where tlie Septuagint ufe It, fo neceflarily' 
 fignifies dipping, that it is impofiible for our Au- 
 thor, or any one elfe, to give it a different mean- 
 ing ; nor indeed can it be fatisfailorily proved,, 
 in any one inftance, that that idea is excluded 
 from the word (k). It follows therefore that 
 Mr. J. has not made good his aflertion, that 
 ^ct7r%y fignifies wajJnng in any way. — We proceed 
 now to confider what our Author has to fay, 
 
 2. To the word ^ctTrji^cc. Here, Sir, he feems 
 to think his chief ftrength lies ; and it is highly 
 fit, as that is the cafe, that he fhould have his 
 full fcope. I wilt therefore take no advantage 
 of what was obferved before, to prove that the 
 two words are fynonymous i but confider him 
 with as much attention, as if it were admitted 
 that their meaning might be various. As, in- 
 deed, he chufes to examine them feparately, he 
 fhould have given us notice of his tranfition from 
 the one to the other, and not abruptly paffed 
 from Nebuchadnezzar to the Ifraelites, without 
 telling us he had difmifled the primitive, and was 
 beojinnino: with the derivative. This inattention 
 to method is, however, eafily to be accounted 
 for, by the fudden effeS: which the likenefs be- 
 tween thefe two Baptifms might have upon Mr. 
 J,*s imagination, and the pleafure he very pro- 
 
 (k) See Gale againft Wall, p. 140. 
 
 bably 
 
The meaning of the word Baptize. 45 
 bably felt from the irrefragable proof thence ari- 
 iing to the divine authority of fprinkling. 
 
 His firfl: paflage then to prove that ^a.'/\t^co fig- 
 nlfies to woj}) a little^ and of confequence that the 
 ordinance is more properly admin iftered by fprin- 
 kling than by immerfion, is this of i Cor. x. 2. 
 in v^^hich the Apoftle tells us, that the Ifraelites 
 were baptized unto A4ofes in the cloudy and in the fca. 
 Upon thefe words Mr. J. obferves that " the 
 *' cloud defcended in a plentiful rain upon them, 
 " and the waves of the fea fprinkled them as 
 " they pafled along f/J." So that from our 
 Author's own account of the matter they were 
 wajhed a great deal^ not ^ Utile. As therefore 
 they were in much the fame ftate with Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, covered all over with the cloud and 
 the fea, as he was with the dew; there feems the 
 fame propriety in the Apoftle*s ufing the word 
 ^rfTT^i'^a here, as in the Septuagint's uUng BifT/lu 
 in Daniel. And what flrengthens the idea, or 
 however would ftrengthen it in the apprehenfion 
 of an ordinary reader, is the Apoftle's adding that 
 they were baptized in the cloud and in the fea : 
 the moft natural and proper rendering of the par- 
 ticle IV that could polTibly be given. But Mr. ^. 
 has a way of evading this obje£lion by telling us, 
 " it might have been rendered by or ^Z." Since 
 however, the meaning of particles depends very 
 
 (/; P. 18. 
 
 much 
 
4^ ^he meaning of the word Baptize. 
 
 much upon the connexion they ftand in, he 
 fhould have given us his reafons for this freedom 
 in the prefent cafe, and not have put his reader 
 ofF with an expedation of fome general difcuffioii 
 of the queftion concerning particles elfewhere. 
 The truth is, it better ferved his purpofe to tranf- 
 late it by or at-, and that, in the eye of prejudice, 
 is a reafon of no fmall ftrength. But let any one 
 judge v^'hich interpretation is moft natural, even 
 upon the view our Author had himfelf given us of 
 the pafTage, He had told us that " the cloud 
 *■' defcePided in a plentiful rain upon them, and 
 " that the v/aves of the fea fprinkled them," I 
 fuppofe on each fide. And what then ? Why, 
 this having been their fituation, he would have 
 the Apoftle tell us, that they were wajked a little^ 
 or that they zvere fprinhkd by or at the fea. On 
 the contrary, I fay, they were iTmnerfed or plunged 
 in the cloud and in the jea* I fancy Mr. A. and 
 moft other people, when a plentiful rain has de- 
 fcended on them, are apt to fpeak of themfelves 
 as having been In a {hower, if not immerfed in it. 
 It does not follow then from this pafTage that 
 ^a,Tr]i^6) will admit of the fenfe for which our 
 Author contends. — And here I v/ould remind you 
 again, Sir, that it lies upon Mr. J. to prove, in 
 the texts he cites, that the word not only may 
 fignify fprinkling, or wafhing by fprinkling, but 
 that that fenfe of it is necejfarily included in thofe 
 paflages; or elfe his argument is not conclufive. 
 
 We 
 
^e meaning ofjhe word Baptize. 47 
 We go on then to the next inftance he pro- 
 duces to that end, and that is the words of the 
 evangelift Mark, who, fpeaking of the Phari- 
 fees, fays, ch. vii. 4. JVhen they come from the 
 market^ except they zvajh ((idi'Trjiffm^oii^ they eat not, 
 jind many other things there he which they have r<?- 
 uived to hold^ as the wajhing (Sicfujio-uvc) of cups 
 and pots, brafen vcffels, and of tables. Now Mr. yf.'s 
 reafoning from this paflage, if I rightly underiland 
 him, is this ; — firft, That thepurifications required 
 in the Jewifh law were performed by fprinkling, 
 and that therefore the words ^cl^']i^co and jSct-tr- 
 7i<ruog mufl here be underftood of fprinkling : 
 and — fecondly, That, from the particular cir- 
 cumftances of the cafes here mentioned, it would 
 be abfurd to underiland them in this place in any 
 other, fen fe. 
 
 Firft, as to the Jewifh vvafhings for purifica- 
 tion ; he fays, " they were ordered to be per- 
 *' formed by fprinkling (.'tz)." It is needlefs to 
 follow our Author through all the paflages he 
 has, or might have, cited from the law of Mofes 
 wherein fprinkling is mentioned. The queftion 
 Js, whether the legal purifications were performed 
 by fprinkling (jw/y ; or fo generally in that way, 
 as that wherever their Baptifms are refer'd to, it 
 would be abfurd or improper to fay that im- 
 merfion or plunging was meant. This furely 
 
 /m) P. 19. 
 
 Mr. 
 
48 7'he meaning of the word Baptize. 
 Mr. A. will not affirm. On the contrary, it 
 may be eafily fhewn that in their purifications 
 they frequently vvafhed their hands and their feet, 
 and, in many cafes, their whole bodies in water. 
 Thus, as to the confecration of the priefts, 
 M.V.A. indeed chufes to tell us only of " Mofes*s 
 " pouring the anointing oil upon the head of 
 " Aaron to fandify him;" but the context of 
 that pafiage tells us alfo that Mofes brought Aaron 
 and his fons^ and wajhed them with water ^ Lev. viii. 
 12, 6. And in the parallel pafiage, Exod. xxix. 
 4. where Mofes is commanded to wafh them, 
 Jonathan renders ^^^ to dip^ thou /halt dip them 
 in forty meafures of fpring water. And though 
 Mr. A, thinks it ftrange that any " fliould infer 
 " from the account given us, 2 Chron. iv. 6. 
 *' concerning the molten fea, that the priefts 
 " were to be plunged in it (;z) ;" yet, when he 
 refle£ls on its fize, that it contained near icoo 
 barrels of water, and that the text fiays, the fea 
 was for the pricfts to ivojh in lH, his wonder will, 
 methinks, ceafe. Nor will the general order 
 he refers to, Exod. xxx. 19. wherein mention 
 is only made of their wafhing their hands and feet 
 at the laver when they went into the tabernacle, 
 admit of a conclufion that at their confecration, 
 and on other occafions, they were not plunged 
 in it. And as to the unclean perfon mentioned 
 Numb. xix. 8, whofe purification, it fliould feem 
 
 in) P. zi» 
 
 from 
 
I'he meaning of the word Baptize. 49 
 from Mr. y/.'s brief account of it, was performed 
 merely by fprinkling the holy water upon him ; 
 the very next verfe (which, not being to his 
 purpofe, he prudently pafies over) tells us, that 
 on the fevcnth day he was to purify hlmfelf, and ivajf) 
 Jj'is ckatheSy and bathe hlmfelf in water, and fo be 
 ^han. This was the day of cleanfing, and this 
 ceremony the chief part of his purification. It is 
 here aifo to be obferved, that the original word 
 ufed in this place for bathings is the fame that is 
 ufed in the ftory of Naaman to exprefs his dip- 
 ping in Jordan. — And now, as it thus clearly 
 appears that the Jewifh purifications were not 
 ordered to he performed by fprinkling only^ but chiefly 
 by bathing or dipping j it follows, that (iaTrji^eif 
 and Q,ct'7f\i<7uoi, in this pafTage, are not necefla- 
 rily to be underftood of fprinkling or pouring 
 water. Yet, 
 
 Secondly, our Author flill obje£ls, " it feems 
 " utterly incredible that the Pharifees fhould 
 *' plunge their whole bodies in water before 
 ** every meal, or that they fhould dip their ta- 
 « bles and beds at all (d?)." But Mr. J. here 
 fuppofes what we are not obliged to maintain (/>), 
 
 (0) P. 20. 
 
 (/>) That, however, there were thofe among the Jews 
 who daily waflied their whole bodies, appears from a paf- 
 fage quoted from Jofephus, page 19th of thel'e Letters. 
 And TertuUian fays, Though the JeiAjs daily 'vcajh e'verj 
 part 0] the body, j£i they are ne^ver clean. 
 
50 ^'he meaning of the word Baptize. 
 The plain fads the Evangelifl means to report, 
 in the third and fourth verfes, are, that the Pha- 
 rifees were ufed always to wafti their hands be- 
 fore their meals j and th^t, if at any time when 
 they came from the market they were extra- 
 ordinarily defiled, they waflied their whole bo- 
 dies. This account of their common and their 
 extraordinary purifications is very natural and 
 pertinent. Whereas it fhould feem little better 
 than a tautology for the facred Hiflorian to {d^'f 
 "in the third verfe, that except they wafh their 
 hands oft they eat not, and to add immediately 
 in the fourth vcrfe, that when they come from 
 the market, except they waili their hands they 
 eat not. Nov/, I hope, it is not " utterly in- 
 ** credible" that they (hould plunge their whole 
 bodies in water on occafion of extraordinary de- 
 filement, fmce, as we h:ive feen jufl before, that 
 was what the law of Mofes required. And if the 
 Pharifees, zealous for the traditions of the eWers, 
 refined upon this law, and obliged perfons in 
 fuch cafes inilantly, and before they eat any 
 thing, to practice this ceremony; nay, if by their 
 explanation of the law refpecling defilement, 
 they made the occafions of fuch immerfion much 
 more frequent than Mofes had done, is there 
 any thing at all in this to be wondered at ? 
 And, for the confirmation of the fenfe I have 
 given of the pafi^age before us, I will add the 
 comment X)f the great Grotius upon it, They dean- 
 fed 
 
^he meaning of the word Baptize. 51 
 
 fed ihemfelves, fays he, .w/V/? greater care from any 
 defilement they got by touching another at market ; for 
 in fiich cafe they purified themfelves^ not by waft)ing 
 the hands only^ but by immerfeng the body [q). And 
 Beza obferves, that '^tn{\i^^,a^(jLi in this place is 
 more than yipt'n']iiv\ for it /hould feem the former 
 is to he underjiood of thi whole hody^ the latter 07:ly 
 of the hands [r). It is not then incredible that 
 the Evangclift lliould mean hy ^di'Tr]/ a coA^i in the 
 fourth veife that they were immcrfed or plunged 
 in water (j). 
 
 And noa', as to their wafhing their hands, ia 
 the third \ erfe ; though Mr. A. will not fay it u 
 abfolutely incredible, that that fiiould be done by 
 dipping them in water, yet he thinks he can prove, 
 from the ftory of EliCha's pouring water on the 
 hands of Elijah, 2 Kings iii. 11. that the hands 
 
 {q) Majori ciira fe purgabant a fori conta61:'j, quippe 
 non raanvis tantum lavando, fed & corpus merfando. 
 
 (r) Plus autem eft ^xTrlt^ta-Qut hoc in loco quam x^h 
 vittIuvj quod iljud videatur de corpore univerfo, iftud de 
 manibiiS duntaxat iiitelligenduni. 
 
 (s) T'le Syriac, '.Arabic, Ethiopic, and Perfic verfions 
 (is Dr. Gale iiath ohi'erved, and as appears by the Poly- 
 glot) underftaad the words in a d ftlient ftnfe, viz. A^id 
 nvhat ,thi;!gs, they buy in .the market-, except they be wajhcd^ 
 ihry eat not. Which, if it be the fenfe of the paffage, 
 Tenioves even the (Indow of a difficuhyj for no one can 
 be at a lofs what is the proper and natural way of wafh- 
 ing herbs, and fuch other things as are ufually bouglrt at 
 inaiket. 
 
 D 2 of 
 
52 The meaning of the word Baptize. 
 
 of the Pharifees alfo were wafhed by afFufion or 
 fprlnkling. Not to fpeak of the diftance of time 
 between Elijah and Chrift, or of Dr. Gale's very 
 natural criticifm upon this paflage, that it might 
 have been rendered, ivho poured out luater for v^, 
 not UPON, the hands cf Elijah; I think it is pretty 
 evident that it was the cuftom among the Jews, 
 to wafli their hands by dipping them in water. 
 The more natural a cuftom is, the more general j 
 and, I fuppofe, it flrikes every one that this is 
 the moft natural way of wafhing the hands. 
 Such Is the pra61ice among us, and, I fmcy, in 
 moft other countries. Why then fhould we 
 fuppofe, unlefs driven to it by neceftity, that 
 the Jews waflied their hands [U it may be called 
 wafhing them) by aftufion or fprlnkling? In 
 the paflage before us the words run thus, exc£pt 
 ihcy ivajh their hands ^avyp.i^ to the elhow^ or at leaft 
 the wj'iji 5cc. and furely fuch wafiiing one would 
 imagine fhould be by plunging. And the Evan- 
 gelift John's account of our Saviour's wafhing 
 the feet of. his difciples moft naturally agrees, 
 I think, with this idea. Jfier that^ fays he, 
 John xiii. 5. he poureth water into a bofon^ and 
 began to wajh the difciples feet. 
 
 But if neither the waftiing the whole body, 
 nor the hands, by dipping them in water, be in- 
 credible; yet furely " it is incredible," our Au- 
 thor thinks, " that. they fhould wafh their beds 
 
 "after 
 
^he meaning of the word Baptize. 53 
 
 *' after that manner." But why fhould this 
 feem fo ftrange, fince the law of Mofes exprefsly 
 directs, that every vejfel which is uridean^ whether 
 it be of.wood^ or raiffieniy or fkin^ or fack^ Jhould be 
 put into water? {'^it(piia{jai) Lev. xi. 32. And 
 if the friends of the paralytick were at the pains 
 to take him in his bed to the top of the houfe, 
 and to let him down from thence into the room 
 where Chrift was; it is more than pofiible that 
 the fuperftitious zeal of the Pharifees might in- 
 duce them to be at the pains of putting their 
 beds, when defiled, into the water. It would 
 carry me too far, Sir, or I might mention many 
 cufloms of theirs full as abfurd, if not more fa 
 than this. And after all, there is no neceffity 
 of rendering the word ;tA/pH beds^ for it fignifics 
 alfo tables^ as our IVanflators have rendered it. 
 —Thus I think Mr. yf.'s reafoning from this 
 pafiage, upon which he and others lay To great 
 a ftrefs, is fufficiently fliewn to be inconclufive. 
 
 There remains only one more pafTage to be 
 -confidered, and which, as it is the laft our 
 Author produces, is I reckon in his opinion ut- 
 terly incapable of being fatisfaclorily anfweredi 
 It is the phrafe of diroerfe wajhings (J^icttpopon &ut- 
 Ti^(j.ct<) Heb. ix. 10. To prove that it necef- 
 farily includes fprinkling in it, Mr. J. gives us- 
 the remark of a fenfible writer upon it (whom 
 yet he has not named) the whole of whofe rea- 
 D 3 foning. 
 
54 5"^^ meaning of the zvord Baptize, 
 ibning feems to be this, that as the phrafe /'la- 
 ^^f^ >:^tfc;^aa']fit, Rom xii. 6. has refpecfl: to the 
 feveral fpecies or kinds of gifts, fuch as prophecy, 
 teaching, ruling, &g. of which xapjc/jictja. is the 
 g'^Rus; fo the phrafe of J^/cte-ooi iixz/j/af^ci refers . 
 to the feveral fpecies or modes of wafhing, fuch 
 as fprinkling or plunging, of which liu7rli<T[j.u is 
 the genus. But whoever confiders that this Au- 
 thor takes it for granted that wafDmgs is the pro- 
 per rendering of ^-xr/jiffy.o/, and fo reafons from 
 vvafhings, as the genus, to fprinkling and plung- 
 ing aij the f|>ecies; whoever I fay confiders this, 
 will quickly perceive that his reafoning is falLici- 
 cus. V/e inilft that the proper tneaning of the 
 word 3<X'3!7^cr/y.5/ is bathings or dippings : where- 
 fore we may, with as good reafen as this fenf:ble 
 wrltery argue analogically from this other paifage 
 in Romans, and fay, that as prophecy, teaching, 
 . ruling, &c. are the difterent fpecies of the genus 
 gifts; fo the various plungings of priefls, Icvites, 
 and people, for confecraiion, defilement, &c. are 
 the different fpecies of the genus dippings or 
 bathin^gs. And what is the refult of this reafon- 
 ing? Why, that we are in flatu quo, and that 
 nothing is from hence to be argued either way. 
 So that it cannot be proved from this paflage, 
 that ^f.'7r]i(T(/.oi neceffarily includes the idea of 
 iprinkling. On the contrary, as the context 
 does not obliore us to underhand the word of 
 fprinkling, and as its" original and proper fen fe 
 
 is 
 
The meaning of the word Baptize. c^^ 
 
 is dipping, or fuch a wafhing as is by clipping, 
 it fhould rather Teem that it here fignifies bathing 
 or dipping in water only (/). 
 
 Thus we have confidered at large Mr. J.'s 
 {tn(c: of the word Baptize, and I hope fufficiently 
 made it appear, that the arguments he has ad- 
 duced to prove that it fignifies to wafn, indiffe- 
 rently, either h-j plunging or fprinkling^ are utterly 
 inconclufive. But, that no doubt may reiriain 
 as to the true meaning of the word, you will give 
 me leave, Sir, with as much brevity as poffibie, 
 to fliew you, 
 
 (/) Spencer unlerftands //at^ogo/ here as referring to 
 the vaiious forts of perfons cleanfed, and the occaficris 
 of their c\QdLX\^\x\g.-—Alia efiim erat Pontijicis & Sacerdoium 
 htioy alia Lcnsitarujn^ Ifraelitarum alia, (afc. Spenco- cie 
 Lr-g. Heb. lib. 3, cijfurit. 3. p. J 61. And Giotius, Fa- 
 rias loticncs nofnifiai, quia lotio alia erat Sacerdotumi alia 
 Levitarumj ^V. And Whiiby in loc. 
 
 Here I cannot help taking notice of a paffage in Dr» 
 jBentlcy'^s Philtleutherus Lipfienfis, though it be not di- 
 reflly to the purpofe of clearing the fenfe of this text in 
 the Hebrews. Having had occafion to quote a pallage 
 from Plutarch, where he thinks the proper reading is 
 ^Afriia-ixm inftead of o-aCCttliTiuistj he renders ^uTrJir/uae 
 without any hefitation dippings, telling us that both nvord 
 and thing (as a religious rite) was immernoriall^ known 
 in Greece, Phil. Lip. p. 212, 213. 8th edit. 
 
 D 4 Se- 
 
§6 TJhe meaning of the zvord Baptlzf. 
 
 Secondly, What abundant pofitive evidence 
 we have that the kn(c 1 have given of it is juft, 
 VIZ. that it properly and only fignifies dippingy 
 or fuch wojhing as includes dipping in it. 
 
 Here, Sir, I fhall appeal to the bcfl Lexicogra- 
 phers and Criticks, to the pureft Greek Authors, 
 and to the Septuagint Vcrfion of the Old Tefta- 
 ment. And if, befide their united teftimony in 
 favour of my aiTeption, it (hall be found, that it 
 is by no means abfurd thus to render the word 
 in any of the pafTages in the New Teftament, 
 that the circumftances attending the adminiflra- 
 lion of the ordinance, as related in the AtXsy 
 -and the frequent metaphorical allufions to it in 
 the Epiflles, do naturally and perfedly accord 
 with this fenfe of the word; and, more than this, 
 that moft learned men, among the Poedobaptifls 
 themfelves, are clearly of opinion that the an- 
 cient and fcriptural mode of baptizing was by 
 iTimcrfion : if, I fay, thefe points are made good,, 
 k will, I hope, be acknowledged that I have fatis- 
 fadorily proved my affertion. 
 
 Conftantine, Stephens, Hedericus, &c. all 
 agree that its proper genuine fenfe is, ia dip^ 
 plunge -t or overwhehn. And though they give it 
 the farther fenfe of wajhingy yet that fenfe is 
 confei^uential of the former, as whatever is dip- 
 ped in the water may be faid to be wafhed. 
 
 VoiSus 
 
The me-miing of the 'K.'^^r^ Baptize, ^y 
 
 Voffius fays, Though ^a-Zja and ^cf,7r]i^M arc iifed 
 to he iranjiatcdy to dip or plwzge^ and then to dye ; 
 yet the word properly Jignlfies to dip, and only by a meta* 
 lepfis i9 dye^ that is, as dying implies or fuppofes 
 dipping («). It were endlefs to cite authorities 
 from Greek Authors to prove that fuch is the ge- 
 nuine fenfeof the word. A great number Dr. Gale 
 has colle6led, in his anfwer to Mr. Wall, and 
 made very large and pertinent remarks upon them; 
 which, Sir, you will allow m.e to recommend to 
 your perufal. I will, however, here infert two 
 or three inflances I have met with, w^hich may 
 ferve as fpecimens of the reft. Sophocles, in one 
 of his tragedies, introduces Minerva as faying to 
 Ajzx—but tell ?ne thisy haji-thou dipp'd (iiTct^^O 
 thy fp ear in the army of the Greeks [x) ? Polybius,. 
 defcribing a fea- fight between the Carthaginians^ 
 and Romans, wherein the former were conquer- 
 ors, fays — they sunk [idfTrli^ov) many of the vef- 
 feh of the Romans (y). And Plutarch, fpeakino- 
 of the extravagance of Othoj who was after- 
 
 (u) VofT. Etymologic, in Baptifm. Etfi autem ^itT?*- 
 k ^xTrli^Bo- turn mergo, vel mergitOj turn thigo, transfeiri 
 foleant j proprie tamen jnergo notat, & /utiju^nfrlaimif 
 lingo. 
 
 {x)' CtA\' iKBVO fJLOt (pc^.CiOV 
 
 Ajace, V. 95, 
 
 Polyb. Hift, lib. i. p. 74.. Edit. Janf. 1670. 
 D 5 wards 
 
5 8 ^he meaning cf the word B ap t ize. 
 
 wards a Roman Emperor, that he owed no lefs- 
 than fifty millions of drachmas; fays, that he 
 was QVERWHELMED {'iiCA^rliTfjiiia ) in dtbt^ OTy 
 as we fhould exprefs it ki cur language, it;<7j cvtr 
 head and ea7's in debt (z)^ In the Septuagint Verfioa 
 of the Old Teftameat, and the Apocrypha, which 
 ] have carefully examined, the words occur twenty- 
 five times. In eighteen of thofe iyijiances^ Dr. Gale 
 fays; I think he might have faid twenty, they un^ 
 douhtedly mean to dip> As to the remaining five, 
 two of them refpeil Nebuchadnezzar, whofe cafe 
 we have confidered. That in Ifaiah xxi. 4. clear- 
 ly fignifies to overwhcbn. That in 2 Mac. i. 21,. 
 is befl underftood, and I think can only be. pro- 
 perly underflood, by referring to the primary idea 
 of dipping. And that, Eccleilafficus xxxiv. 25*. 
 as it refpedls the Jewifli purifications, can by no 
 means be proved, as hath already been fhewn,, 
 to exclude the notion, of plimging. 
 
 To all this pofitive proof,, which onp fhould' 
 expect would be fatisfadory in mofl cafes, I will; 
 add' the conceflions of feveral learned Pcedo- 
 "baptifts — concefTions, I mean, not. of a generaF 
 kind, that imirierfibn was the ancient fcriptural 
 mode (for of thefe there are a prodigious num- 
 ber) but concefTions as to the true, and proper 
 iBeaning of the word. Calvin' fays, The zvord: 
 
 {z) ^ip]KtKi(Tyjxiev ^v^td.S'cdv o^h:\](icttn ^iCa^^iv-- 
 UiV9.V» Plutarch. Galba, Tbra. 3. p. J 504, 
 
 1 i<fif>^ 
 
The meaning of the word Baptize. 59 
 it/elf, baptize^ fignifies /^ dip, and it is -plain thai 
 ih£ rite of dipping was ufed by the ancient church [a)^ 
 Beza tells us the vjord ^ayrji^a does not fignfy to 
 wajh^ unlefs by confequence ', for it properly denotes 
 to IMMERSE for the fake of dipping (b), Grotius 
 is clear, in his annotations on Matt. iii. 6. that 
 the propriety of the word^ as well as the places chofen 
 fir the adminiflration of the ordinance^ and the many 
 cllufions of the Jpojlies to it which cannot be referW to 
 fprinkling^ Jhews that it was the cujlom to aditiinifter 
 it by PLUNGING, not by pouring water (c). Salma- 
 fius, who, notwithftanding the advantage which 
 Milton gained over him in the famous difpute 
 concerning Charles the Firft, was filled by the" 
 great Cafaubon ad miraculum doSliis j fays, Bap' 
 tifm is iMMtRSiON, and was formerly celebrated 
 according to the force and meaning of the word (d), 
 Monf. Bofluet, the bifhop of Meaux, in defend- 
 ing the practice of withhol-ding the cup in the 
 
 (a) — ipfiim baptlzandi verbiim mergere fignificat, & 
 mergendi ritum veteri ecclefiae obfervatum fuille conftar. 
 Calv. inftit. lib. 4. cap. 15. § 19. 
 
 (b) Bezae Annot. in Marc. vii. 4. 
 
 (c) Merfatione autem non perfufione agi folitum hunc 
 ritum indicat & vocis pioprietas, & loca ad eum litum 
 dele6la Joh. iii. 23^ A61. viii. 38. & allufiones multae- 
 Apoftoloium, qus ad afperfionem referri non pofTunt, 
 Kom. vi, 3, 4. Col. ii» jz. 
 
 (d) hATrlic-fAOf imineifio eft, & fecundum vim ac notio- 
 nem nominis olim celebrabatur. Vid. Wolfii Cuias Phi- 
 i«l. in M:\t. xxviii. 19. 
 
 D6 Lord*s 
 
6o fhe ■meaning of the word Baptize. 
 
 Lord's fuppcr from the la-ity, urges upon the Re- 
 formed the inconfiftency of their eonducl in op- 
 pofing theRomanifts upon this matter, fince they 
 too pervert the other ordinance by nst plunging: 
 children in the water of haptifm^ as fefus Chrijl was 
 ^hmged in the river Jordan ; and adds, To baptize 
 fignifies /5 PLUNGE, as is granted by all the world [e). 
 To all which teftimonies, that I may not tire you. 
 Sir, I {hall only add that of Dr. Towerfon, who, 
 in his explication of the chatechifm of the church 
 of England, fays, The words ofChriJi are that they. 
 Jhotild baptize or dip ihofe whom they made difciples 
 t9^ Him (for Jo no doubt the zvq/'d^A'TrJti^eiV properly 
 ftgnifies) &c. (f). 
 
 Thus, Sir, you fee what pofttlve proof we 
 have that the words ^drTrlco and ^cL7r]i^a do truly 
 and properly fignify to dip^ or fuch wafhing a? 
 includes dipping in it; and what r^afon we have 
 to conclude that this is its only meaning, fmce it 
 cannot be proved, m any one inftance our Au— 
 thor has produced to the contrary, that it ne- 
 ceflarlly figniiies to wajh a little^ or to wajh byt. 
 fpriiikling or pouring water, " Let the impartial,,. 
 *' then, from thefe few remarks, Judge," to ufe 
 Mr. y/,'s words, " whether it be right to afiert, 
 
 {e) Saptifer fignfie plonger, Se tout le monde en eft 
 d'accord — Le Traite de Meflire J. B. Bofluet de la com- 
 Bhinion fous les deux efpeces, Partie II. § i & z, 
 
 (/J See Towerfon'i Explicat, &c. of Baptifm, p. 20. 
 
 '< that 
 
^he meaning of the zvord Baptize. 6i 
 
 *' that dipping or planging is the true and only 
 " import of the word Baptifm in the lacred Scrip- 
 " tures ; or, whether fprinkling or pouring is 
 ^' the ancient and fcriptural mode of baptizr 
 " in'Z." 
 
 I sm, Sb-,, 
 
 ¥oufs. 
 
 t E T^ 
 
r ^2 ] 
 
 LETTER V, 
 
 Dear S i R, 
 
 WE come now to Mr. J.'s fourth chapter, 
 wherein he treats of Baptifms recorded ht 
 the New Tejlatneni^ which are fuppofed^ by feme ^ to 
 have bccfj adminijlered by immerfion, Thefe are the 
 Baptifms of the Jews and our Saviour, by John; 
 and of the Eunuch, by the Evangelift Philip^ 
 Now I prefume, Sir, if the fucred Hiftorians had 
 only told us that [thefe perfons were baptize_d, 
 without mentioning any of the circumftances of 
 their feveral Baptifms, you would have at once 
 concluded from what has been faid in the pre- 
 ceding letter, that they were immerged or plung- 
 ed in water. The meaning of the word has, I 
 hope, been fatisfatSlorily afcertained. Nor can 
 I tell how to imagine it poffible, that when a 
 rite of univerfal and perpetual ufe is to be efla- 
 blifhed in the church, the great Legiflator fhould 
 chufe to exprefs his will in ambiguous terms, 
 and oblige his difciples to have reccurfc to mere 
 circumftances to determine v/hat is his true 
 meaning. If the reafoning of the former letter 
 has any force in it,, this is not the cafe. Our 
 
 Lord 
 
Thcr Baptiftns of the, Jews ^ Sec. 6j 
 Lord could not hav^'ufcd a plainer word to con- 
 vey his mind ;. and th-e general practice of tha' 
 whole Chriftian church for thirteen hundred 
 years *, clearly fhews^ that there is not that dif- 
 iicultv in the quedion, which the zealous friends' 
 of afperfion would fain pcrfuade the world there 
 is. So that having fettled the fenfe of the word^ 
 by a kind of proof as faiisfad^ory, I fhould ima- 
 gine, as any reafonable man. can lequire; if that 
 fenfe is genuine, we need not doubt but all the 
 circumftances of the feveral Baptifms reported irr 
 the New TeftairiCnt will- \try well accord with 
 it. This I will be bold to affirm is the Cafe. 
 And if it fhould fo happen that fome of them are 
 cf fuch a kind as, of thenifelves, to determine 
 nothing either way y the argument refpetSting im- 
 merllon fufFers nothing from hence : it flands as 
 firm as ever. — Thus much premifed, let us ex- 
 amine Mr. J.'s remarks on each of the Baptifm.s 
 referred, to in this chapter, 
 
 * Dr.Wliiiby fays, that immei'fion ivas religioujly ohferif. 
 ed.byall chnj}ians for thirteen centuries. See his Com- 
 ment, on Rom. vi. 4.. 
 
 The Bi/hop cf Meaux alfo acknowledges, in the piece 
 fiift now referred to, that it may be made appear by the Ad's 
 of Councils, and by. the ancient Rituals, that for thirteen 
 hundred years Baptiftn nvas thus adminijiered throughout the 
 
 rtvbok churchy as far as nxjas poffible. nous pouvous 
 
 foire voir par les Aftes des Conciles, & par les anciens 
 Rituals, que trei%e cens ans durant on a baptife de cette 
 Ibrte dans toute rEglife, autant qu'il a ete pofllble. 
 
 L. h^ 
 
^4 ^^^ Baptifms of the Jews^. 
 
 I. As to the manner in which John baptized 
 his difciples, our Author tells us, *' he has not 
 «' yet met with fatisfaclory evidence that it was 
 <t by immerfion *." Left, however, what hap- 
 pens not to be fatisfadlory to him fhould be fo to- 
 others, he is willing to provide againft that emer- 
 gency, by reminding his Readers that " John was 
 *' no chriftian minifter, nor his baptifm a chrif- 
 ** tian ordinance ; and that therefore, if John 
 " did baptize by immerfion, chriftians are not 
 ** from thence obliged to be dipped or plunged ||.'" 
 It Is not at all to our purpofe to enter into the 
 queftion refpeding the intent of John's Baptifm 
 and our Saviour's, nor into that refpe6ling the 
 converts at Ephefus, whether they were re- bap- 
 tized by Paul — queftions which have taken up 
 a long page of our Author's book. It will be 
 fufRcient to obfcrve here, that the word Baptize 
 muft fignify the fame in our Saviour's commiffion 
 to his difciples, as it does in the ftory of John*. 
 If therefore the true and proper meaning of it be, 
 as I have (hewn in the former letter, to immerfe 
 or dip, then whatever difference there might be 
 in the intent or end of the two Baptifms, they 
 muft be both fimilar in regard of the mode of 
 adminiftration. But if Mr. A. will infift, not- 
 withftanding all that has been {iiid, that the 
 meaning of the word is doubtful, and that the 
 queftion as to the mode of Baptifm depends in- 
 tirely on the circumftances attending the admi- 
 
 * P. 23. § I. II P- ^4. 
 
 X niftration 
 
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 6^ 
 
 niftration of it, as related in Scripture; dill it 
 may be afked, why fhould the fuppofed difFcrence 
 between the intent of John's and of Chrift's Bap*, 
 tifm infer a difference as to the manner of ad- 
 miniftering them ? If John performed the ordi- 
 nance by immerfion, it is furely natural to con-" 
 elude the Apoftles did : nay, if we are not ex- 
 prefsly aflured to the contrary, it is certain they 
 did, fmce the fame word is ufed to defcribe the 
 inftitution in the one cafe, as in the other. And, 
 sifter all, fuch fort of reafoning as this, tending 
 to confound the Baptifms of Chrifl; and John, 
 comes with a very ill grace from that pen, which 
 takes (o much pains to carry us much farther' 
 back than John, and to fix a refemblance be- 
 tween Cb-riftian Baptifm and Jewlfh fprinklings«" 
 — And now let us fee what are our Author's rea-' 
 fons for fuppofing, that John did indeed baptize- 
 by fprinkling. They had need, furely, be very- 
 clear and convincing, fmce the circumftances of 
 the ftory are fo plain, that (befides the confidera* 
 tion of the true and natural meaning of the word 
 Baptize) it is fcarce poiTible, methinks, an un- 
 prejudiced reader of his Bible fhould hefitate a 
 moment at the fa<SI:, that John adminidered the 
 facred rite by immeruon. 
 
 His firft reafon is, that *' the mode of fprink- 
 <' ling or pouring water befl agrees with that of 
 
 " the 
 
66 ^he Baptifms cf the Jews^ 
 
 *' the eft'ufion of the fpirit upvon the apoflles on 
 " the day of Pentecoft ; to which he fiippofes 
 *' John refers v.'hen he fays, / baptize you zvith 
 *■' water unto repentance^ but he that cotiieth after me 
 '■' Jhall baptize you with the Holy Ghojt and with 
 " fire *." Tliis fort of reafoning by analogy 
 Mr. A.^ upon fome occafions, does not at all ?p- 
 prove oi\ as particularly when v/e tell him of onr 
 Saviour's- having a Baptifjn to he baptized with 'u)^ 
 ^nd that the mode of immernon applied to his 
 fufferings in that palTage, conveys a far more 
 ftriking idea of them than that of fprinkling. 
 No, fays he, '' the terms are certainly figurative, 
 " and it is not eafy to afcertain their precife 
 meaning ; every hypothefis, therefore, found- 
 ed upon this pafTage, muft be very precarious. 
 A ftrong imagination, or a prejudiced mind, 
 may find an objc6t, and then point out a re- 
 femblance in many particulars, but no reader 
 of judgment and caution will ftrain fo obfcure 
 *' an alluPiOn (o)." And when he is farther 
 told of our being buried with Chriji in Baptifmy 
 which plainly fixes a refemblance between his 
 burial in the fepulchre, and ours in the water by 
 immerfion, he is fo offended with this analogical 
 kind of reafoning, that he will not allow the- 
 Apoftle hath any reference to the death and bu- 
 rial of Chriflj but if we will have it he refers 
 tofoinething, that it muft be to the Chriftian*^s 
 
 * Page 25. (n) Luke xii. 50. (0) Page 37. 
 
 deathk 
 
cur Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 6y 
 
 denth unto fin, and revival to God and righte- 
 culncfs. And ftill perceiving the refeniblance in 
 this laft inftance is as ftrong as in the former, 
 and that therefore this evafion will riot at all avail 
 him J he at once with great addrefs eludes the 
 objedion, by totally obliterating all idea of a bu- 
 rial, and fubftituting in the room of Baptifm, fa 
 reprefented, the vjajhlng of regeneration^ " which, 
 " adds he, the Apoflle fays, he hath poured out 
 " upon us *." Such is our Author^s bitter an- 
 tipathy on fome occafions to allufions, and fuch 
 his fkilful management of them, when they (land 
 •in his way, or give him any the lead diftuib- 
 ance ! 
 
 Yet, in the inftance before us, this allufive 
 reafoning pleafes him well \ and he thinks he fees 
 fo perfect a refemblance betv/ecn the defcending 
 of fire upon the Apoftles and John's fprinkling 
 his difciples, that it is almoft demonftrable from 
 hence, that fprinkling is the true mode of Bap- 
 tifm. And now, if I had no other method of 
 efcaping the force of this argument, but the 
 ufing Mr. AS weapons, and at the fame time 
 had not the ingenuity to acknowledge my weak- 
 nefs ; I fliould fay to him, ' You miftake, Sir; 
 the allufion here is not to the Baptifm of fire, 
 but to the Baptifm of the Holy Spirit ; and there- 
 fore, as the Baptifm of the Holy Spiiit is calkd 
 
 * Page 42—45. 
 
 the 
 
62 The Bapliftm of the Jtws^ 
 
 the wafhing of regeneration, and that wafhing 
 is by bathing or (dipping, John's Baptifm was 
 by dipping.' Thus, Sir, fhould I caft duft be- 
 fore your eyes, as our Author has done, and then 
 triumph in the mighty vi6lory I had gained. Hut 
 thefe are not the weapons of our warfare. If we 
 cannot convince by plain reafoning from the 
 word of God, we will not have recourfe to the 
 little arts of fhuffling and evafion. 
 
 The account I have to give of the pafTage m. 
 debate is this ; *' I indeed plunge you in water, 
 *' but He that comes after me fliall plunge you 
 *' in fire; the fire of the Spirit, or fpiritual fire. 
 '' Therein fhall ye be laid, like gold in the fire, 
 " in order to its being refined." My reafons 
 for this interpretation, which is, if I miftake not, 
 abundantly warranted by Scripture, a«d the par^ 
 ticular connexion in which the words ftand ; I 
 fay, my reafons for this interpretation I fhall give 
 by and by, when we come to the clofe of Mr. A.\ 
 feventh chapter, where he more largely difcufles 
 this argument. In the mean while, I afk. Sir, 
 Is there any abfurdity or manifeft impropriety 
 in this explanation of the words ? If, however, 
 Mr. A. will infifl: there is, and that this allufion 
 to fire neceflarily obliges us to conclude that John 
 a<lminiflered Baptifm by fprinkling, he muft be 
 at the pains to defend a much more forced and 
 unnatural interpretation of the plained: hiftorical 
 iacts that could be related, concerning the man- 
 ner 
 
mr Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 69 
 ner of his baptizing his difciples. This indeed 
 he does attempt ; but before we Come to inquire 
 how he fucceeds, we muft take notice of another 
 prefumptive kind of argument he has to ad- 
 vance in favour of John's having baptized by af- 
 perfion. 
 
 <* Indeed it ought to be remembered," he tells 
 us, '' that John was of the line of the priefts, 
 " who had been always ufed to perform their 
 " purifications by fprinkling, and therefore it is 
 " not to be fuppofed he would exchange that 
 " ancient mode for dipping (0).'^ But how 
 ftrange is it that our Author, v/ho wnll not ad- 
 nnit that John's mode of baptizing by immerfion, 
 if that is proved to have been his mode, is obli- 
 gatory on us Chriftians ; that be fliould be fo 
 fond of making the Jewifli fprinklings an ex- 
 ample to John ! The fliort and plain anfwer, 
 however, to this is, that the Jewifh purifications 
 were not by fprinkling only^ or chicfiy j for the 
 main part of their purifications were, as I have 
 already (hewn, by bathing or dipping. So that 
 if John did make the Jewifh cuftoms his pattern, 
 it was more natural to exped he fliould baptize 
 by immerfion than afperfion. And, whereas 
 Mr. A, is at a lofs where to find any exprefs coin- 
 mand John ever received to dip, I refer him to 
 
 (0) Pa£;e 26. 
 
 John 
 
*-6 "^he Bdpii/ms of the Jews^ 
 
 John i. 33. where he himfeif tells us that he was 
 Jmt to BAPTIZE iv'iih water. 
 
 And now, Sir, let us fee how our Author 
 evades the force of that evidence in. favour of 
 immerfion, which arifes from the plain hiftorical 
 circumftances reUued concerning his B^ptifm. 
 Here I wc^uld obferve, before we proceed, that 
 we do not lay the (liefs of the argurnent upon 
 thefe circumftances: it is enough for us, thnt 
 they exaclly accord with what we have proved to 
 be the true and prc)per meaning of the word Bap- 
 ihe. So that though it were admitted, that the 
 {tn{Q our opponents would put on all or either 
 of the circumlliances of John's Baptifm is a pof- 
 fible one, it will not from thence follow that he 
 brplized by fprinkling. But, I am perfuaded, 
 the fenfe v^q affix to the words, every unpreju- 
 diced reader will acknowledge is the moft pro- 
 bable, natural, and proper. 7'o begin then 
 with the particle 51-; v;hich, Sir, do you think is 
 the mof} plain and obvious rendering" of it, John 
 baptized in Jordan, or with Jordan ? You will 
 at once fay the former, 'i^ake, however, the 
 particle In eiiher fcnfe, it will agree with the idea 
 of immerfion, but not with that of fprinkling ; 
 unlefs you fay the Jews {lood in Jordan, whilft 
 the Baptifl fprinklcd them, which, if that ^NtxQ 
 the mode, was by no means neccflary, " But 
 
 " it 
 
cur S^viour^ ajid the Eunuch. 71 
 
 <' It fignifieb alfo by (that is, of the inftrument) 
 *« and ^/." Be it To: it is ftill true of John, if he 
 baptized by immerfion, that he baptiztd by or at 
 Jordan. To what purpofe then is al: thk^ arith- 
 metick labour? " It is more than a hundred times 
 *' in the New Teftament rendered at \ and in 
 " an hundred and fifty others, it is tranflated 
 " iviih(Tn).'' And what then ? Mr. ^.'s criticifin 
 will avail him little, till he has been at the far- 
 ther trouble of collecting the number of times it 
 occurs in the other fenfes, and has then caft up 
 the fum total of all, and told us which has the 
 majority. And even then, if it fliould iurn out 
 in favour of at or luith^ he has not proved that 
 John did not baptize In Jordan. But I am a- 
 (hamed, Sir, of this trifling 
 
 The places where John baptized, ccme next 
 to be confidered. They were all baptized cf hi w^ 
 fays Mark, in the river Jordan^ confejjing their 
 Jim (0), Now what plain reader, who is un- 
 verfed in the fubtiltics of controverfy, and has 
 no point to maintain at all events, but would 
 conclude from this pafTage that the Jews were 
 dipped in Jordan, as Naaman was of old in the 
 fame river ? But if he could be fuppofed to have 
 a doubt upon the matter, another Evangelifi: 
 would- inftantly remove that doubt, by giving 
 h'nn this plain reafon for John's baptizing alfo in 
 
 (m) Pjge ?7. (0) Mark i. 5. 
 
 Enon 
 
J- 2 'The Baptifms of the Jeivs^ 
 
 En on near Salim, hecaufe there was much water 
 there (/). But however it may be with the plain 
 Reader, Mr. A. has ftill his doubts : " He can- 
 •' not, upon an attentive and impartial inquiry 
 " into the feveral circum fiances of the cafe, 
 <' find in it any the leaft evidence of John's bap- 
 :*« tizing by immerfion *." What fhall we do 
 then to convince him? In what plainer lan- 
 guage would he have the ftory related to that 
 end? ' Oh! it fhould not have been faid -ttcAA^^ 
 vJ'cc'i^fy for that may mean " inar.y Jircams or ri- 
 " vukts.'* Well, but this very phrafe the Sep- 
 tuagint Verfion ufes to defcribe the great river 
 Euphrates, or however thofe branches of it, 
 upon v.hich the mighty Babylon flood [k) ; and 
 furcly he will not fay that that river or that thofe 
 branches of it were flreams or rivulets. By this 
 remark Dr. Doddridge confirms the fenfe he gives 
 of the phrafe, telling us that iiothing furely can be 
 ?nore evident than that -TrcAAcf, vS'd^ct fignifies a large 
 quantity of water ^ it being fometimes ufed for the 
 river Euphrates, To which, adds he, / fuppofe 
 there may alfo be an allufion. Rev. xvii, r, &c. 
 luhere the voice of many waters does plainly ftgnify 
 the roaring of a high fea [I). And Dr. Whitby 
 exprefsly applies the reafoning of the Evangelifl 
 to our argument, by thus paraphrafing the words, 
 *' There was much water there ^^"^ in which their 
 
 (/) John iii. 23. * P. »?• § 3- {Ji) Jer. li. 13, 
 Septuagint. {}) Sec Doddridge jn loc» 
 
our Saviour^ and the Etmuch. 73 
 whole bodies ?mght be dipped ; for in this manner 
 only was the Jewijh Baptif?n performed^ by a decent 
 into theivater^ Ads viii. 38. and an afcent out cf it^ 
 V. 39. and a burial in it, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 
 12 (m)> And if it were farther neceflary to efta- 
 blifli the rendering of the phrafe in our Bibles, I 
 might refer Mr. J. to a fimilar one, Rev. viii. 3. 
 :^v[j.tctiJLctja, 'TTohhA, which furely is beft, and only, 
 to be tranflated much incenfe. 
 
 And now, what has our Author to oppofe to 
 this clear circumftantial evidence that John bap- 
 tized by immcrfion ? Why, he gravely tells us, 
 *' in the firft place, that it is no where fald he 
 *' plunged any one of his difcip.les in thefe wa- 
 *' ters [n) j though we are tv/ice told he did in 
 the very paflage he refers to: which he will find 
 to be the fadt, if he will confult the pafTage, and 
 calmly confider the reafoning of the Letter pre- 
 ceding this. — But, you will afk him perhaps, 
 if he did not plunge his difciples in t^he water, 
 why is it faid he chofe this place above others 
 becaufe there was much water there? Mr. y/.'s 
 ingenuity at once fupplies an -cinfwer, " He 
 ** might take the hint for baptizing" in this 
 place preferable to others, " from an order 
 " given to the priefls of old, who were com- 
 *' manded to take the unclean leper to a ru.'i- 
 " ning water, and there fprinkle upon him 
 
 (w) See V/hltby in loc. (;/) Page 27. 
 
 E '* that 
 
47 '^^^ Bciptifms of the Jezvs^ 
 
 *' that was to be cleanfed from his leprofy fcven 
 *' times," Lev. xiv. 4 — 7. (0) But, pray Sir, 
 why may not I be ingenious too ? and fay, that 
 he might take the hint for immerfing his difci- 
 ples, from the eighth verfe of that very context 
 he refers to, where the leper is required io woJ]:> 
 himfelf in water. And fince Naaman was a leper, 
 and was healed of his leprofy by dipping in Jor- 
 dan, why may not I farther fuppofe, that John 
 from hence took tivo hints^ the one of the place 
 Jordan, and the other of the adion dipping? 
 But, if iheje fuppolitions will not fupply the 
 place of folid argument, Mr. A, has others ; 
 " John would naturally chufe a fituation the 
 *' moft proper for the accommodation of his 
 *' hearers." Now " Enon's many ftreams would 
 *' not only afford an agreeable refrefhrnent, but 
 '* be indifpenfably neceffary to this great multi- 
 " tude in fo warm a climate, efpecially in the 
 " fummer feafon f/>)." And why may not I 
 again fet my invention on the ftretch, and fay, 
 that as it was a warm climate, and a hot and 
 fultry feafon, John might think it more con- 
 ducive to the health and refrefhment of his hear- 
 ers to bathe them in the water, and therefore 
 preferred this mode to fprinkling? But, I hope, 
 you will excufe my thus imitating the unhal- 
 lowed arts of fophiflry, though it be only with 
 a view to expofe them. 
 
 (0) Page Z7, 28. (f>) Ibid. 
 
 To 
 
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 75 
 
 To return: you will fay, perhaps, our Author 
 has quite loft fight of the plain end, for which, 
 and for which aloney the Evangelift mentions 
 John's having baptized in Enon. No, Sir, he 
 has not. That place Mr. A. tells us he the ra- 
 ther chofe, as it enabled him " the more expe- 
 " ditioufly to baptize his followers by pouring 
 '' water upon them {q)" But furely the reafon, 
 in regard both of convenience and expedition, is 
 much ftronger in fi^vour of immerfion than fprink- 
 ling. And as to what he adds, of " the high 
 " improbability of his baptizing this vaft multi- 
 '' tude by immerfion j of modefly's forbidding 
 *' his plunging them all naked ; and of the great 
 " unlikelihood of their having proper changes of 
 '' apparel with them (r) ;" I reply — We are no 
 where told, that it was a fevv days or a hw weeks 
 only,thatJohn was thus employed baptizing in the 
 Avildcrnefs: — he might im>mcrfe the people with 
 very near a^ little expence of time, if not trou- 
 ble, as fprinkle them ; efpecially as Mr. A. is of 
 opinion he had " no utcnfils with him *' for that 
 purpofe: — Luke fays, the multitude came forth 
 to be baptized of him (;) ; fo that their fubmiffion 
 to this facred rite, was not fuch a, furprize upon 
 them as our Author would indnuate : — and as tQ 
 the buUnefs of clothes, they might eafily be fur- 
 nifhed with them, as bathing was much ufed 
 among the Jews j and the Ellenes, as Jofephus 
 
 , (T^'P^ge 28» (r) Page 29. {s) Luke iii. 7. 
 
 ■ K 2 repo rt.< 
 
76 I'he Biiptifms oj the Jews^ 
 
 reports, every day before dinner drefTed them- 
 Iclves in a linen habit, and fo vvafhed their bodies 
 in water (i). Thefe things confidered, there does 
 not appear to be that diiEculty in the matter 
 Mr. A, would infinuate. And now, Sir, t^U 
 me, whether the ingenious torture to which our 
 Author, has put this plain pafTage, John hapiized 
 in Enon near Salim^ becaufe there was much water 
 there^ has any the leaft efFedl to reconcile you to 
 the {ti\(Q he would affix to it, or to the practice 
 of aiperfion to which he would fiiin accommo- 
 date it? We proceed, 
 
 2. To Mr.y/.'s obfervations on our Saviour's 
 Baptlfm by John *. I am glad. Sir, you are not 
 likely to be detained long here, as 1 think your 
 patience mufl already have been fufficiently tried 
 with the trifling objedions urged under the for* 
 mer head. The facred Hiftorlan informs us, 
 that yefus^ when He was baptized^ went up Jlraight- 
 way out of the water^ that is out of Jordan [t]. 
 From whence you and I Ihould be apt to infer, 
 that He was /« Jordan, and that He was plunged 
 in it too, fince that, as I have ihewn, is the 
 true and proper meaning of the word baptize. 
 But our Author, throwing the word baptize 
 out of the queftion, makes the whole argu- 
 ment in favour of immerfic n to reft upon the 
 phrafe of our Saviour's coming up out of Jordan, 
 
 (^) As Nve have feen p. 29. of thefe Le;ter8. ♦ P. 30. 
 § 4.. (/) Mat. ill. 16. 
 
 which 
 
cur Saviour^ and the Eunuch, 7 7 
 
 which he tells us will not admit of fo " \\'^{\y 
 " an inference," as that He was plunged in It (u). 
 But, I know not who. Sir, fays that his coming 
 out of the water fignifies, or even necefiarily in- 
 fers, his being plunged in it. It is enough for us 
 that his coming out of it proves that He was in 
 it; and that if He was in it, it muft have been 
 for the purpofe the Evangelift had mentioned 
 of his being baptized, that is, immerfed in it. 
 The difpute therefore turns upon the meaning 
 of the phrafe c?.viCy\ a.nro He went up out of: and 
 yet there can be no juft reafon afligned for find- 
 ing fault with the fenfe our Tranflators have 
 given this plain phrafe, except that of its mani- 
 feftly favouring the idea of immerfion. Left, 
 however, what he had to fay upon the matter 
 fhould not fatisfy his Readers, Mr. A, has pru- 
 dently diverted their attention for a while to an- 
 other account of our Saviour's Baptifm, which 
 better fuits his purpofe than that of the infpirci 
 Hiftorian, and of which, as he has thrown it 
 into a note, I fhall take notice below {^x). Well, 
 
 but 
 
 («) Page 30. 
 
 (jf) The ftory Mr. A. telh "S that «' the Lord Jefus 
 ** Cbrtfi entered into the fea^ and John iv'iib all bumdity 
 ** baptixed Him 'VJith bis band, and njjafied Him, by caji~ 
 *' ing neater on bis bead;"' this ilory, I fay, is certainly ve? y 
 much to our Author's puipol'e. It wants only one little 
 ciicumftance to render it decifive in the prefent debate, 
 and that is, authenticity. I won't pretend to fny, that 
 there is no " ancient eaflern hiftory of Chrill, written in 
 *♦ Perficj" but I do not know it, nor can I get any ac- 
 E 3 count 
 
7 S "The Baptifm of the Jews^ 
 
 but what is the meaning of the phrafe? «< ft 
 *' is ufed, fa\'s Mr. A. to defcribe his return 
 *' from the water-fide." Not that he takes AviCn 
 to fignify he returned: he admits that it fignifies 
 his afcendhig or corning up; but would fain divert 
 the word' from any reference it niight feem to 
 have to our Saviour's having been in the water. 
 To this purpofe he tells us, " Jordan like other 
 " rivers, probably (he might have faid, certain- 
 *' ly) rnn in the lower ground." And what 
 then? Does this prove that our Lord was only 
 at the brim of Jordan, and not in it? What- 
 ever river He had been in, it would have been 
 proper to defcribe his coming out of it by this 
 
 count of it from the books and friends I have confulted. 
 If however there be fuch a hiftory, Mr. A. will do well 
 to favour the Chriltian world with an account of it. Till 
 then, whatever weight his fiory may have with the weak 
 and credulous, he can't wonder that others confider it in 
 the light of one of thofe old wives fables, which the Apo- 
 file exhorts Timothy to rejeft. 
 
 As to the word %^^'^\ agnmedh {r\o{ anada zs M\\ A. 
 has if^ ufed in the Syriac and Arabic gofpel for baptizing} 
 as ftrong an inference may be drawn from it in favoui* of 
 immerfion, as of afperfion. The word is derived from tlie 
 Hebrew lOp ftetit, and is found, when put for baptiz- 
 ing, in Aphel; fo that its proper fignlfication is to make 
 or caiife to Jiand. And whether the making a perlbn to 
 Itaiul, may not as properly be underftood to refer to the 
 raifing him up in the water when immerfed in it, as to 
 ** the fetting hiin upright in a font," in order to his having 
 water poured upon him, I leave any one to judge. 
 
 word 
 
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch, 79 
 v/ord rtfs^rt ; and that is fufHcient for us. " But 
 "' we know, fays he, .that there are hills near 
 *' Jordan." So then, according to Mr. y/, the 
 facred Hiftorian meant to inform us, that when 
 Chrift was baptized He went up the hills near 
 Jordan. And what follows a verfe or two after I 
 Why, He was led up^ that is, from thefe hills, 
 into the wildernefs. I can readily enough agree 
 with our Author, that "Jordan, like other rivers, 
 *' probably ran in the lower ground ;" but am at :\. 
 lofs, I acknowledge, to conceive with the like eafe 
 of a wildernefs fituated above hills. Such pains do 
 men take to confound the plaineft fenfe, in order to 
 ferve a purpofe ! — But though Mr. A. c-an make 
 nothing of the verb etrs^w, yet he thinks he can 
 of the prepofition ^j^rc " That, he tells us, in 
 '* fcores of paflages in the New Tellament, fig- 
 *' nifies no more than /r*w." To prove this 
 affertion, which no one will difpute, he produces 
 four or five inflances, and thofe too, that they 
 may have the greater efFecfV, from the Evangel ift 
 Matthew himfelf. But will thefe, or a fcore 
 befides, prove that (tTc^ in the connexion it here 
 flands, does not fignify cut of? Or if they will 
 (which yet he does not pretend to afTert) I afk, 
 by what other particle, except this of ^^to, or sk, 
 which he afterwards treats in much the fame 
 manner, the Evangelift could convey the idea of 
 our Lord's coming cut cf iho, water, if He really 
 was in it, as we fay, and every plain Reader 
 E 4 would 
 
So The Baptifms of the Jevjs^ 
 
 would fuppofc? And now it remains that we 
 
 confider, 
 
 3. The remarks cur Author has to make on 
 the Baptifm of the Eunuch by Philip *. They went 
 Mozvn, fays the facred Hiftorlan, both into the wa- 
 ter^ both Philip aad the Eunuch^ and be baptized 
 him (y). We fay, and fay very naturally upon 
 this pafTage, that as the word baptize fignifies to 
 immerle; and as, in order to a perfon's being im- 
 Hierfed, the adminiflrator and the fubjedt muffc 
 both go into the water: {o the plain faft before 
 us exadly accords with this idea of the inftitu- 
 tution. All that Mr. y^. however can gather 
 from the ftory is, '* that they went to the water, 
 *' and that Philip baptized the Eunuch. He 
 *' cannot find one word of the manner in which 
 '* he baptized him, whether by dipping him in 
 ** the water, or pouring the water upon him.'* 
 But, though our Author is unwilling to acknow- 
 ledge that baptizing fignifies immerfmg; yet he 
 thinks the adion of going into the water looks that 
 way. His objedl therefore is, to make the prepo- 
 fition eii fignify to^ inflead oi' into. But, before 
 he comes to give his reafons for this amendment 
 of our tranflation, his bufmefs is to provide 
 f^gainft theconfequence of failing in the attempt. 
 To that end he tells us, '* that they might both 
 <' go into the water without being, either of 
 
 •» Page^3s. § 5. (j>) Aas viii. 38. 
 
 " them, 
 
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 8 1 
 
 " them, plunged in it:" and '* that if the ex- 
 " prefTion of their going down into the water 
 " necefTarily includes dipping them; Philip was 
 *' dipped as well as the Eunuch ; for what is faid 
 *' of one is faid of both ||." But what unaccount- 
 able trifling is all this ! Mr. A. furely is not feri- 
 ous! except in his wifh to amufe and confound 
 his Reader. What Baptift ever faid, or thought, 
 that perfons cannot go into the water without 
 being plunged in it? or, that the expreffion of 
 going down into the water neceflarily includes 
 dipping in it? All they fay is, that if Philip 
 and the Eunuch went into the water, it mud be 
 for fome purpofe ; and that that of the former's 
 immerfing the latter, is much more natural and 
 feafible than that of his taking up water and 
 pouring it upon him : becaufe this might as v/ell 
 be done without their going into the water, that 
 could not. Our Author then might have fpared 
 his confequence, ^' that Philip and the Eunuch 
 *' muft have been both dipped." To fhew him, 
 however, more clearly the ridiculous abfurdity 
 both of his premifes and his confequence, I will 
 alk htm what be would have been apt to fay, if 
 a Baptift had thus reafoned with him? " Phi- 
 lip, Sir, and the Eunuch might go to the water, 
 without having the water fprinkled on them : 
 if the exprelTion of their going down to the water 
 necefTarily implies fprinkling^ then Philip was 
 fprinkled as well as the Eunuch." 
 
 e P^ge 33. 
 
 E 5 And 
 
8 2 The Baptifms of the Jews^ 
 
 And now, to prove that en fhould here be 
 rendered io, he cites a long train of paflages 
 wherein it fometimes fignifies io^ fometimes /w, 
 fometimes for, and fometimes towards. And 
 what is the refult of all this learned criticifm ? 
 The utmoft it proves is this, that it may fignify 
 to, not that it w«/?. That it mi^ he does not 
 pretend, and even that it may is fcarce pAbable, 
 fince by giving it that rendering we make the 
 Evangelift fay, Th^y came to a certain water^ and 
 then prefently, they went down io it. 
 
 As to the latter part of the ftory, when they 
 were come up out of the water ^ Mr. A. reafons 
 after much the fame manner he had done before 
 concerning our Saviour's Baptifm. Left there- 
 fore, in the iirft place, the word ctvc^wdcLv they 
 zvere come lip, fliould feem at all to favour the 
 abfurd practice of immerfion, he has recourfe, 
 as under the former head, to the geography of 
 the country. '' Travellers and hiftorians, fays 
 *' he, inform us, that this ftream was only a 
 " fmall rivulet in a hilly country, which even 
 " lower down is fometimes dried up in fummer, 
 *' and the place at which Philip baptized the 
 *' Eunuch is thought to have been at the foot 
 *' of a mountain which is near its fource." 
 But why all this trouble? If he had infifted, 
 as before, that ftreams as well as rivers flow in 
 channels below the ground on either fide of them ; 
 
 and 
 
our Saviour^ and the Eunuch. 83 
 
 and that therefore he who had been at the edge 
 of the ftream, when he returned from it, might 
 be faid to come up, we fhould not have difputed 
 the matter with him. But fmce he is fond of 
 fixing this ftream at the foot of a mountain 
 which is near its fource, and fo fuppofes them 
 to have defcended from the mountain and then 
 to have afcended it again; one would be apt to 
 afk, why they did not ftop at the fource, and 
 perform the ceremony there, inftead of giving 
 themfelves the trouble of going down to the 
 brook in the bottom, and then climbing up the 
 precipice again. Such, however, is the ingeni- 
 ous labour to which an unwillingnefs to admit a 
 plain and eafy fa6l expofes men! And now, 
 having told us that their coming up had no refpedt 
 to their having been in the water, his next con- 
 cern is to prove, what no one has ever denied, tl^at 
 the prepofition g>t fometimes fignifiesyr^w as well 
 as out of. But does it thence follow that out of is 
 not the proper rendering of the particle here? 
 Or if he is of opinion that neither efTs-o nor s^, 
 do, in the connexion we have been confidering, 
 fulHciently convey the idea for which we con- 
 tend, he'll do well to tell us what Greek particle 
 will. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have confidered our Author's ob- 
 
 fervations upon the Baptifm of the Jews, of our 
 
 Saviour, and of Philip. Thefe fa6ls are related 
 
 E 6 in 
 
§4 ^he Bapiifms of the Jews Sec. 
 
 in fo fimple and artlefs a manner, as are indeed 
 all the narratives of the Bible, that I am per- 
 fwaded no plain unprejudiced man can miftake 
 them. Nor fhould I hefitate a moment to leave 
 the decifion of the queftion refpe£ting immerfion 
 to the fentence of fuch a perfon. I am confident 
 he would tell us, at the very firft reading, that 
 he cannot find any one circumftance at all lead- 
 ing to the idea of fprinkling; whereas they all 
 of them exadlly accord with that of immerfion. 
 Nor fhall I in this opinion of mine be deemed 
 hafty or prefumptuous by the candid Reader, 
 fince the greater part of the mofl learned Pcedo- 
 baptifis, I had almoft faid all, have frankly ac- 
 knowledged that John the Baptift and the Apo- 
 ftles did moft unqueftionably baptize after this 
 manner. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Sir, to* 
 
 L E T^ 
 
C «5 ] 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Dear S i r, 
 
 OU R Author's fifth chapter is taken up,, as 
 he tells us in the title of it, with the ota^ 
 mlnation of texts, in whieh fome fuppofe there are al" 
 lujions to immerfion, as the original mode of baptizing^ 
 The firft he mentions is that in the Corinthians 
 relating to the Ifraclites, who are faid to have 
 been baptized unto Mofes in the cloud and in 
 the fea. But, as that had been taken notice of 
 in the third chapter (where alfo I have remarked 
 upon it) he declines any farther confideration of 
 it here. The three or four remaining pafTages,. 
 on which he chufes to infift particularly, we fliall 
 examine in the order he has placed them, 
 
 I. The firft is that in Luke xii. 50. where 
 our Lord fays to his difciples, / have a Baptifm /* 
 he baptized with^ and hovj am I Jlraiined till it be 
 accomplijhed I There can be no doubt but our 
 Saviour had a view in thefe words to his ap- 
 proaching fufferings, and that He defigned to ex- 
 prefs the greatnefs and pungency of them by this 
 allullon to Baptifm. It is natural therefore to 
 3 inquire 
 
26 Scriptural AUufions 
 
 inquire what likenefs there is between BaptiTm 
 and fufFering, or between the ftate of one bap- 
 tized and that which Chrift was in when under 
 his laft grievous and complicated forrowis. Now 
 that mode of Baptifm for which we contend, 
 fixes a ftriking refemblance between the one and 
 the other, as every one upon the lead reflexion 
 muft acknowledge. " As he who is baptized is 
 jmmerfed in water, fo fhall I be plunged in fuf- 
 ferings — be fo overwhelmed with them that no 
 part, neither foul nor body, fhall be exempted 
 from pain and mifery," Whereas, if we fup- 
 pofe fprinkling to be the mode of Baptifm re- 
 fer'd to, the defcription will lofe much of its 
 energy, and inftantly become faint and languid, 
 though not (Iri^lly abfurd and improper. '' As 
 he who is baptized hath water fprinkled or poured 
 ijpon him, fo fliall I have affli(flion and forrow 
 fprinkled or poured upon Me." From the juft- 
 nefs of the allufion therefore in the former view 
 of it, we infer that this paflage furnifhes a pro- 
 bable collateral evidence, that Baptifm was an- 
 ciently adminiftered by immerfion. Thus we 
 reafon upon the text, without laying any other 
 llrefs upon it, than the nature of all allufive or 
 metaphorical language will warrant. 
 
 But Mr. A. inftead of attempting to take ofF 
 the force of this reafoning, by fhcwing the re- 
 femblance there is between afperfion and fufFer- 
 
to Immerfion co'nfidered. 2y 
 
 ing, or by giving us fome other fenfe of the text, 
 that might better agree with the figurative lan- 
 guage of it than that which the Baptifts main- 
 tain; inftead of this, I fay, which was furely his 
 proper bufinef?, he feems to aim at nothing but 
 to confound his readers. He tells us, firft of all, 
 that our Lord " could not refer to his being 
 *' baptized of John, as He fpoke thefe words 
 " long after that event (a)." But who, I pray, 
 ever faid or thought He did ? If, however, he 
 means by this to infinuate, that He might poUi- 
 bly be baptized a fccond time, and that He had 
 his eye in thefe v/ords to that Baptifm; he is not 
 indeed the firft that has reafoned in that way; 
 for Epiphanius tells us of fome fuch people in 
 his time, and who of confequence would have 
 fligmatized our Saviour with the opprobrious 
 name of Anabaptift, which has been as unjuftly 
 given to many of his real difciples. He admits 
 however that " our Lord fpeaks of fcenes then 
 *' before Him ; but whether in his life or at his 
 *' death, he is not certain. Indeed there was 
 '' nothing, as he apprehends, in the mode of bis 
 " fufFerings, either in the garden of Gethfe- 
 " mane, at the bar of Pilate, or when He was 
 " lifted up upon the crofs, that refembled the 
 " mode of plunging. Nor can he abfolutely 
 " fay that his thoughts were confined merely to 
 " thofe tranfadtions through which He was to 
 
 (^) P^ 37. 
 
 *' pafs 
 
S^B Scriptural AUufions 
 
 •' pafo before his abafement in the grave [b),^'' 
 So that one (hould fuppofe Mr. A. is of opinion, 
 his thoughts extended beyond death to the grave j 
 and in that cafe, that he meant to fix a refem- 
 blance between Baptifin and his burial: a fenfe 
 very favourable to immerfion ; and for which 
 the Baptifts are much obliged to our Author, it 
 never having, I dare fay, entered into the heads 
 of any of them. But why all thefe pains, as I 
 faid before, to make fo beautiful and ftriking a 
 pafiage obfcure, unlefs it be to amufe and con- 
 found? Let us now proceed, 
 
 2. To the fecond allufive text Mr. A. quotes, 
 *' the argum.ent from which in favour of im- 
 *' merfion," he tells us, " is equally groundlefs 
 *' with the former.'* The words are in i Pet. 
 iii. 20, 21. — the hng-fujfering cf God waked in 
 the days tf Noah^ while the ark was a preparing, 
 wherein fezv^ that is, eight fouls, were faved by 
 water. The like figure whereunto, even Baptifm, 
 doth alfo now fave us (not the putting away of the 
 filth of the flejh, but the anfwer of a good confcience 
 towards God) by the refurre^ion of Jefus ChrijL 
 
 There is, I acknowledge, a difficulty in fixing 
 the precife meaning af this pafTage. Yet I am 
 perfuaded we {hall find upon examination, that 
 there is fuch an allufion in it to the primitive 
 
 {h) Ibid, 
 
 mode 
 
to Immerfion conjidered, 89 
 
 mode or Baptifm as affords a very probable evi- 
 dence in favour of immerfion. It is agreed on 
 all hands that Baptifm is here fpokcn of as sti']/- 
 TUTTci' an antitype, that is, a fgure which has 
 refpect to fomethhig that went before. But the 
 queftion is, what that type is, to which Bap- 
 tifm is faid to be an antitype. It cannot be the 
 ark^ becauTe that being of the feminine gender, 
 the relrtive Z will not agree with it. Nor is it 
 likely it fhould be water ^ bccaufe, thou/^h ^<^A\ci 
 is the immediate antecedent, it is fcarce proper 
 to fay of Baptifm that i: is the frgur^ of water, 
 or the antitype to it. I therefore fuppofe that 
 the relative tj has tb.e wholt; preceding fenience 
 for its antecedent. So that Baptifm, as compre- 
 hending the fubjeift, the mode, and the intent 
 of the inftitution; is to be conlidered here as the 
 antitype to that event which the Apof^le had 
 been relating, viz. hjah and his family'' s being 
 faved hi the ark by water. The bufinels is there- 
 fore to fix the refemblance between the type and 
 the antitype. And this is, in every particular, 
 fo natural, that no one can be at a lofs to per- 
 ceive it. As Noah and his family were all the 
 happy partakers of that great temporal falvation ; 
 fo are believers and their fpiritual feed all the 
 happy partakers of this great fpiritual falvation 
 by Jefus Chrifl. As Noah and his family were 
 plunged in the waters of the flood; fo areChrif- 
 tians in the waters of Baptifm. And as Noah 
 
 and 
 
9C^ . Scriptural Alli'Jlons . 
 
 and his family were faved in water by being 
 in the ark ; fo Chriftians are faved by Baptifm, 
 not as Baptifm has any efficacy in itfelf to fave 
 them, but folely as it hath a reference to the re- 
 furreftion of Jefus Chrift from the dead, of which 
 it is a figure, and in which they exprefs their faith 
 by being baptized. To this purpofe the Apoftle 
 particularly obferves, that Bapiifm doth now fave 
 us^ by the reftirreSiion of ^fefiis ChriJ}. P'or the 
 intervening words betv/een in and by are a paren- 
 .thefis, as our Tranflators have very properly de- 
 fcribed them. Now if this be the fenfe of the 
 text, and I prefume it is the natural and proper 
 fenfe of it ; our Author has an anfv.'er to the 
 queftion he puts with an air of triumph, " with 
 *' what juftice can this pafTage be produced as 
 " alluding to the mode of baptizing by immer* 
 " fion." 
 
 But what is the light in which Mr. A. views 
 the words ? He tells us " the refemblance lies 
 *' between the ark and the ordinance of Bap- 
 " tifm." But the ark cannot, as I have fhewn 
 by the con(}ru6lion of the words, be the type 
 of which Baptifm is faid to be the antitype. 
 Nor is it true that " the Apoftle only afierts that 
 " Baptifm refembles the ark in this circumftance, 
 " that it faves.'' For the relative Z has a refer- 
 ence, not to the ark only, or to the water only, 
 or to their being faved in the ark only, but, to 
 
 the 
 
to Immerfion confidereH, 91 
 
 the whole fentence, that is, to all thefe ideas 
 united. So that Baptifm is the antitype to Noah 
 and his family's being faved in the ark by water. 
 The refembhince therefore extends farther than 
 • merely to the faving tendency ofloth^ that is, of the 
 ark and oi baptifm. And as to the fenfe in which 
 Baptifm is faid to fave itSy I will leave it with 
 the impartial unbiaffed Reader to determine, 
 which account of the matter beft agrees with the 
 figurative language of the text, Mr. AJ's or mine. 
 He fays, *' Baptifm faves us, as a folemn token 
 " of our admiffion into that covenant, which 
 " engages for our prefervation here, and a (late 
 *' of compleat and everlafting happinefs here- 
 *' after, through Jefus Chrift." I fay, it faves 
 us, as by our being plunged in the water and 
 raifed up out of it, much after the fame manner 
 that Noah and his family were, we exprefs our 
 faith in the death, burial, and refurredtion of the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, and our hope of eternal fal- 
 vation thereby. This fenfe is, I think, the more 
 proper, as there is a likenefs not only between 
 the ftate of one baptized and that of Noah in 
 the ark; but alfo between our Baptifm and the 
 burial and refurre£lion of Chrid-, with which 
 likewife it feems as if the Apoftle defigned to 
 compare it, by faying exprefbly that Baptifm faves 
 us by the rfurrc^iion of Jefus Chrijl {c). Whe- 
 ther,. 
 
 (r) Sir Norton Knntcbbul), in his annotations on this 
 pafijge, fjys, '« — there was netd of feme fignificant type 
 
 or 
 
92 Scriptural Alltifions 
 
 ther, however, this was or was not his intention, 
 fuch comparifon is very clearly and ftrongly 
 drawn, as we fhall quickly fee, in the epiflle to 
 the Romans. 
 
 And now it remains that I take fome notice 
 of the latter part of the words, not the putting 
 away of the filth of the fiejh^ hut the anfvcer of a 
 good confcience towards GocL Here the fenfe is fo 
 plain that one would think it could not be per- 
 verted : yet Mr. A, has given it fuch an ingeni- 
 ous turn, as at once to weaken the former part 
 of the verfe, by depriving it of any connexion 
 with the rejurre£iion cf Jefus Chrtji -, and at the 
 fame time totally to fupprefs, in the words them- 
 felves, a fentiment which he faw to be extremely 
 
 ** or figure, which might make To impenetrable a notion 
 (he means the refurreelion of Chrift, whereby He was de- 
 clared to be the Son of Goo) " familiar and perceptible 
 ** to the fenfe of men; to which purpofe nothing feemed 
 *' more fit and eafv, in the wildom of God, than the 
 ** burying our bodies in water by haptifm, from whence 
 *^ they receive an immpdiate refuneftion. Sjiha wemay 
 ** pofitively affirm, that Baptifm is properly and folely a 
 *' type of tne refurreftlon. And to tliis truth do give 
 *' their fuffrage the Apollles, Fatheis, Schoolmen, almoft 
 ** all interpretei-s ancient and modern, and even our 
 " EngliHi church it^'elf, it's judgment being manifeft in 
 " the Rubrick of the Common-Praye**, which enjoins 
 ** the d'pping of infants in Baptifm, allowing only in 
 ** fome Cciles the liberty of fprinkling or perfufion." And 
 fo he goes on to produce his teflimonies. 
 
 ufi- 
 
to Immerfwn confidend. g^ 
 
 unfavourable to Pcedobaptifm. Before we lay 
 open this device of our Author's, let me explain^ 
 in a word or two, the Apoflle's true meaning, 
 if indeed it needs explanation. Having told us 
 that Baptifm faves us, left that expreflion (hould 
 be mifunderftood, or we fhould be tempted to 
 lay ati undue ftrefs upon the inftitutlon, he re^ 
 minds us that // is 710 1 the putting away of the filth 
 of the flejh^ it does not fave by any influence it 
 may have to cleanfe from bodily or typical defile- . 
 ment; but as /V /i the anfwer of a good confctence 
 towards God, as it is fubmitted to in obedience 
 to the divine command, and as a folemn decla- 
 ration of our faith in Chrifl:, Now, this being 
 the obvious meaning of the words, it is natural 
 to infer from the former claufe, that immerfioa 
 was probably the primitive mode of baptizing;, 
 as the filth of the flefh is much more properly 
 and effedually put away by this kind of wafti- 
 ing than by fprinkling (d) : and from the lat- 
 ter, that infants are not the fit fubjedls of 
 Baptifm, as they are incapable of fubmitting to 
 it in obedience to the didates of confcience, 
 
 {d) Euftathius, in his notes on Homer, Odyff. ••' 
 v. 170. vvliere Eyrynome advifes Penelope " to leave off 
 *' lamenting, ivaJJ/mg her bcdj, and anointing her face," 
 hath a note wherein he explains the ufe of fuch vvafliing 
 the body by the fame words the Apoftle here ufes; it is, 
 fays he, aTcSsT.'xet' fxiv gvnt — unicvy a means to cleanfe th^; 
 body f, oai filih. 
 
 But 
 
94 Scriptural Allufiom 
 
 But our Author, while he properly enough ob- 
 ferves on the flrft part of the fentence, that the 
 Apoftle " teaches us here that Baptlftn does not 
 *' fave as a mere external form of purity," takes 
 care to refer us in a note to the account he had 
 given, in the third chapter, of the Jewifh purifi- 
 cations by fprinkling ; fo intimating that this 
 putting away of the filth of the flefh was by 
 afperfion, and that therefore this phrafe is not 
 to be improved into an argument in favour of 
 immcrlion. To which the fliort reply is, that 
 thofe purifications were, as I have (hewn, chiefly 
 by bathing. — And as to the latter part of the 
 fentence; in order to elude the objedblon arifing 
 from thence to the baptizing infants, he gives us 
 this flrange interpretation of it, " that Baptifm 
 " does not fave, unlefs it be accompanied with 
 *' the fan£lification of the Spirit, that may en- 
 *' able us, with a good confcience towards God, 
 <' to give an anfwer to thofe who afk a reafon 
 " of the hope that is in us, through the refur- 
 " re6tion of Jefus Chrift." So, you fee, he in- 
 genioufly detaches the phrafe, hy the refurre^lion 
 of Jefus Chrifi^ from the former part of the verfc, 
 to which it can only with propriety belong; and 
 makes the arfiver of a good confcience towards God 
 to have no reference to Baptifm, but only to 
 mean that the fandification of the Spirit (which 
 may or may not follow Baptifm) will enable a 
 man to give a reafon of his hope through the 
 6 refur- 
 
to Immerjicn confidered, p^ 
 
 refurre6lIon of Jefus Cbrift.— But, is Mr. A, 
 himfelf fatisfied with this expofition of the text? 
 — If not, how can he expect it will be fatis- 
 fadlory to any fmcere inquirer after the truth ? 
 
 3. The next pafTage to be confidered is that 
 in Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. compared with a fimilar 
 pafTage, Col. ii. 12. Know ye noty that fo many of 
 us OS were baptized into Jefus Chrifl^ were baptized 
 into his death? &c. The Apoftle's view in thefe 
 words is to perfuade the Romans to a holy life 
 and converfation. To that end he reminds 
 them of their Baptifm, and of thofe great truths 
 which that inftitution is adapted to exprefs, and 
 to which, by being baptized, they had declared 
 their firm afTent; from all which confiderations 
 he argues their perfonal obligations to obedience. 
 He, firft of all, appeals to the general idea they 
 could not but have of the nature and intent 
 of the ordinance : Know ye not that as many as 
 were baptized into Chrift^ as were thus initiated 
 into his religion; were baptized into his deaths did 
 by Baptifm profefs their faith in his death, and 
 their refolutlon to conform to the fpiritual mean- 
 in2; of it. So he goes on to a more particular de- 
 fcription of the manner in which they were bap- 
 tized, as ftrongly expreifive of thefe great truths, 
 and of the fenfe they muft have felt of their im- 
 portance. We are buried with Him {e) by or thro'' 
 
 (e) 'S.vv{ja(^iiiMV' 
 
^6 . Scriptural Allufions 
 
 (//.rt) Baptifniy^nd in Baptlfm (as it is in the Co- 
 loffians) into death: as He being dead was bu- 
 ried, fo we in this ordinance are buried with 
 Him. And like as [vc^^^) He was raifed up from 
 the dcad^ fo we are raifed up with Him, or (as 
 in the Coloflians) we are in Eaptifei rifen ipiih 
 Him (f). And from hence he inters their obli- 
 gation, having been planted together in the likenefs 
 ef bis deaths to he alfo in the likenefs of his refur^ 
 re^ian^ and to "xalk in ncwnefs cf life. 
 
 Now furely a plain Reader would be apt to 
 conclude from thefe words, that the Apoftle had 
 a reference to the manner in which Baptifm was 
 adminiftered, and the refemblance there mufl 
 have been between that inftitution, and the bu- 
 rial and refurreclion of Chrift. And what mode 
 muft that be, which refembles a burial and re- 
 furrechion, but immerfion? This idea, methinks, 
 the paflage would naturally fuggeft to fuch a 
 pen'on, without the sid of " a ftrong imagination 
 '• or a prejudiced mind;" nay "a Reader of 
 '' judgment and caution'* might apprehend this, 
 without the danger of being charged with 
 ♦' ftraining an obfcure allufion f^J." But our 
 . Author is of another mind. " The fuppofition," 
 he tells us, " that Paul alludes here to immeriion 
 " in Baptifm, as bearing a refemblance to the 
 *' burial and refurrection of Chrift, is entirely 
 
 (f) 2vyn>tj5»75. (g) P. 37- 
 
 *• founded 
 
ta Immerfion covfidered, 97 
 
 '' f unded in a miftaken interpretation of the 
 '' pafiage. — Baptifm does not fignify the humi- 
 " iiation of Chrift in the grave, and his rifing 
 *» again — it does not figure any fcenes through 
 " which our Redeemer palled (/?)." If Bap- 
 tifm then has no reference here to the death 
 and refurreclion of Chrift, and bears no refcir.- 
 blance, in the Apoflle's intention, to thofe events ; 
 to what does it refer ? Mr. A. tells us, to " the 
 *' Chriftian's de«th unto fm, and revival to God 
 *' and righteoufnefs ;" and he adds, that the 
 Apoftle " reprefcnts Baptifm as a type or token 
 '* of that (i),'* Be it fo. What is the ccnfe- 
 quence? Why, it follov/s from his own ac- 
 count of Baptifm, as a type or token of the 
 Chriftian's death to fm and reYiv^l to righteouf- 
 nefs, that it is only properly adminiTEered by 
 immerfion; for I'arely Baptism by afpcrficn is no 
 type or token of a perfon's death and refur- 
 rection. But Mr. A. aware, as it fhould feem, 
 of this confequence, i-flantly converts the idea 
 of a death and revival into that of *' a chanse 
 " efFected by the^vafhing of regeneration, which," 
 adds he (ftrongly marking the word by giving 
 it in the original) " He halh Jhed ( J?'/S£t J poured 
 *' out on us {k)y — Ar i fo he not only fets afide 
 the idea of immerfion in Baptifm, but fubftitutes 
 that of fprinkling or pouring in its rcom. But 
 furely our Author might have been content with 
 
 {h) P. 44, 45. (/; p. 4j. (k) P. 45. 
 
 F ex- 
 
^S ■ Scriptural Allujtons 
 
 expunging the former idea, without obtruding 
 upon his Reader the latter; efpecially in this 
 connexion, fince he had told us, a few lines 
 before, that " the Apoftle does not refer," in 
 the pafiage under confideration, '* to any mode 
 «' of adminiftering the ordinance.'* So infenfi- 
 bly, to fay the beft of it, are men betrayed into 
 the fubtilties of falfe reafoning, when once thro* 
 prejudice they lofe fight of the plain truth! 
 
 Indeed, Sir, I have been at a lofs thoroughly 
 to comprehend Mr. J.'*s meaning. Sometimes 
 I have ilrongly apprehended, that he does not 
 allow Baptifm to partake of the nature of a ilgn, 
 figure, or reprefentation at all ; and that he means, 
 upon that principle, to overthrow the notion of 
 an allufion to immerfion in the text. But this 
 is fo abfurd an opinion, and fo directly contra- 
 dicted by himfelf, in fome pafTages I have juft 
 quoted, that I fuppofe he does not chufe to avow 
 it. Yet, his reafoning has not the leaft vippear- 
 ance of plaufibility in it, unlefs the idea of Bap- 
 tifm's being a fign or figure is intirely thrown 
 out of this pafTage. But fince it evidently is :i 
 fign, as is alfo the other pofitive inftitution the 
 Lord's Supper; by what authority does our Au- 
 thor fet afide this idea of it here ? Or how can 
 he expe£l to convince a man of common under- 
 (landing, that, placed as it is in this connexion 
 with the death, burial, and refurredlion of Chrift, 
 J. •. ' " and 
 
to Immerfwn con/td^red, '"9^ 
 
 and with our death to fin, and revival to rlghteouf- 
 ncis, it h^js .110 reference at all to immerfion? 
 Nor is it any objection to a refemblance between 
 Baptifm and our Saviour's death, 5cc. that Bap- 
 tifin has a ftill farther refemblance to our death 
 ^c. both in a natural and fpiritual fenfe. On 
 the contrary, this enlarged view of the inftitu- 
 tioH- adds a flill farther beauty and propriety to 
 that mode of adminiftration for which we are 
 contending. — As to Mr. A.'s cbjet£^ion to our 
 fenfe of the text, as if it *' made the two diftindt 
 " pofitive inftitutions of the gofpel interfere with 
 " one another ("/j;" it is fo trifling that it fcarce 
 deferves an anfwer. What ! becaufe Baptifin 
 and the Lord's Supper have a reference to thd 
 fame facfls and docSlrines, do they therefore fo 
 clafli with each other as to difturb their order, 
 or any way defeat their utility? With very near 
 the fame propriety he might have told us, that we 
 fhould not ofter thankfgiving to God in prayer, 
 becaufe that is the fpecial or main bufinefs of 
 finging. But, 1 afk, does not our Author him- 
 felf make the two inftitutions inteifere, when he 
 tells us, " that Baptiim is a token of the appli- 
 *' cation of Chrift's blood for our juilifica- 
 *' tion (/«)."— and " a token of thxit- redemption 
 " which He has obtained for us by iiis precious 
 '* blood («) ? And as to the obfer-vation which 
 follows, " that if Bapjifm be a rnvm-^rial oV 
 
 (I) P. 42. (w) P. 52. (^u) P. ^ 
 
 F 2. 
 
lOO Scriptural Allufwns 
 
 *' Chrift's burial and rcfurre6lion, it fhould be 
 " adminiftered after the ordinance of his Supper, 
 " wRich celebrates his death, and ihould be re- 
 *' peated as often as that is repeated [o) \* it is 
 of the fame trifling nature with the former. 
 If, however, it had any weight in it, it would 
 deftroy the force of the preceding objection, 
 fmce it fuppofes the two inftitutions to refer to 
 chffercnt fadb, and fo in no fenfe to interfere with 
 each other. But, as all pofitive inftitutions and 
 the circumflances of them muft depend intirely 
 on the will of the Legiflator, it is enough for us 
 that our Saviour has dircded Baptifm to be ad- 
 nviniftered but once, and the Lord's Supper to be 
 frequently repeated. And though the former 
 has refpecl to the death, burial, and refurrc£lion 
 of Chrift, as well as the latter; yet Baptifm has 
 .evidently a more peculiar fitnefs in it to exprcfs 
 a perfon's initiation into the profefllon of the 
 gofpel, than the Lord's Supper, 
 
 And now. Sir, I perfwade myfelf enough has 
 been faid to prove, that the Apoftle alludes in 
 thefe pafiages to the ancient and fcriptural mode 
 of adminiftering Baptifm by immerfion. Left, 
 iiowever, it fhould be fuppofed, that prejudice, 
 or the being accuflomed to confider the words 
 in this light, hath had any undue influence on 
 iny reafoning, you will allow me to annex the 
 
 (o) Page ^a, 43. 
 
 inter- 
 
t9 Immerfion conjtdered. lo-t 
 
 interpretations which fome eminent vc^w have 
 given us of the texts referred to, who yet were 
 not in the fame practice with us. I might cite 
 many fuch authorities, but I Ihall confine my- 
 feJf to a few. Archbifhop Tillotfon fays, in bis 
 fcrmon on 2 Tim. ii. 19. Anciently thofe who were 
 hapt'i%cd put off their garrnentSy which fignified the 
 putting off the lady ^-f fm^ and were immerfed and 
 buried in the ivater^ to reprefent their death to Jin j and 
 then did rife up again out of the water, to ftgnify their 
 entrance upon a n^zu life. And to thefe cuftoms the Jpjs^ 
 file alludes^ when he fays ^ *' How JJjall we^ that are 
 " dead tc fin, live any longer therein? Know ye not 
 " that fo 7nanyJ>f us as w€re baptized into Jefus Chrij? 
 
 •• &c." Bifhop Burnet, in his Exppfuion of 
 
 the Articles (p), fays, th^it when any were brougU 
 to acknowledge that Jefus is the Chrijl, l^c, then they 
 were to baptize them, and initiate ithem intb this re- 
 ligion, by obliging them to re^nowhe ,gH idolatry and 
 ungodlinefs, as well as^qllfec^lar^(fhd,cfirn(\lJ^^Jls'y 
 ond they led tl^^ra into the water, and iuith no other 
 garments but what might "coper nUtMre^ thCy at frji 
 laid them down in the water, as a man is bid in a 
 grave, and then they faid thefe words, J baptize or 
 wafh thee, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghojl J then they raifed them up again, and clean 
 garments ivere put, on them. From whence came the . 
 phrafes of " being baptized into ChrijVs death, of 
 " being buried with Him by bftptifm into death , of 
 
 (p) Artie. 27. p. 300. 
 
 F 3 « cur 
 
'3^2 Scriptural Allufwns 
 
 ** our h/Jifrifen with ChriJ}" and of «< our put- 
 *'- ting on' iht Lord Jefui Chrijl ; of ■putting off the 
 *^- old man y'* and putting on the nei/j.'^ — Dr. Whit- 
 by,' in his Commentary on the New Tcftament, 
 obfGivcs upon the pailage before us, // beitig ex- 
 frefsly declared here^ and Col. ii. 12. that we are 
 ^*'' Imfted with ChriJ} in baptif?n^''^ by being buried 
 under water ; and the argument to oblige us to a 
 xonforfnity to his death by dying to fm^ being takeh 
 hence ; and this immerfion being religioujly obfcrved 
 by .allChriJlidns for thirteen centuries^ and approved 
 by our churchy and the change of it into fprinklingy 
 even without any allowance from the Author of this 
 ^inJJiiutiony or any licence from any council of the 
 ■churchy being that ivhich the Romanijl Jlill urgethy 
 *-to jujtify his r'efufat of the cup to the laity \ it were 
 to 'be' wijhed thiifthu ^Ufioni might be again of general 
 ufey and afperJioH -only permitted^ as of old, in cafe 
 of the cliniciy or iri' prefeiit danger of death.-— The 
 AfTembly of Divines,^ 'in their Annotations, tlius 
 exprefs their f^nfe of the'woirds; In this phrafi, 
 ■ * * Bufiecb with- ""Him tn bapti'fmy^' the Apoflle feemeth 
 to cdhde to the ancUnh'manner of baptifm^ which wds 
 to dip-'t^ 'paHic's^^pizedy '^nd^'dlif Were to bury 
 iheniiiMerm iCtiief for\'' while y and thin to draw 
 them up out cf'itl-'and'Uft them up^ to reprefent the 
 'V trial of%rM%hh, and bur rcfurreSlion to ncw- 
 nfs of //Yi^'-^A'n^'Dr.^i^dddriclge acknowledges. 
 It fcerhs thifart 'of caiYdor' to conffsy that here is an 
 
 allufion to the mim' ^f'^^P^'^'^^^^^ ^y ^^^^^"f^^^' ^^ 
 ■ ^ [ moji 
 
to Immerficn conjtdered, 103 
 
 moji ufual in ihcfe early times. Though, indeeed,' 
 he adds, tkat that will not prove this particular cir-^ 
 lumjlancc to he ejfential to the ordiiiance, 
 
 4.^ The laft pafiage Mr. J. mentions, as \in- 
 derftood by fome to allude to immerficn, is in 
 I Cor. XV. 29. Elfe what Jhall they do which are 
 baptized for the dead, if the dead rife not at all ? 
 why are they alfo baptized for the dead? As there 
 are various fenfes given of this text, virhich it 
 would be tedious to collecl: ; fo the Baptids do 
 not lay any great ftrefs upon it in favour of their 
 opinion. That fenfe, however, which our Au- 
 thor adopts as " moft natural and proper,'* in- 
 ftead of weakening the argument refpciSting im- 
 merfion, feems to me rather to confirm it. Fie 
 thus paraphrafes the text — " If there be no re- 
 '-' furre£i:ion, what iliall they do, what a part 
 '' will they appear to have afted, who in Chrif- 
 " tian Baptifm, have been initiated among thofe 
 " that avow themfelves dead to the fmful plea- 
 *' fures of fenfe in the prefent life, in which 
 ** fuch indulge themfelves without reftraint as 
 *' have no expectation of an hereafter?" Now, 
 if in Chriftian Baptifm we are Initiated among 
 the dead, it feems natural to expert that there 
 fhould be fomething in the inftitution fignifica- 
 tive of fuch initiation. And *what mode of ad- 
 miniftration fo proper to that end, as the inter- 
 ment of the body in water? But, if I may bq 
 F 4 allowed. 
 
104 Scriptural Allufwhs 
 
 allowed, with all deference to the judgment of 
 others, to give my own fenfe of the words j 
 I (bould fuppofe the Apoftle's meaning to be 
 this, * To what purpofe are Chriftians baptized 
 
 * (t^^ep) in the room of the dead, laid in the 
 ' baptifmal fepulchre as if they were perfons 
 
 * a£lually dead, and fo raifed up again, in token 
 
 * of the death and refurredion of Chrift, and 
 ' of their own future death and happy refur- 
 *■ region ; to what purpofe, I fay, are they 
 
 * baptized after this manner, if there be no re- 
 ' furredtion at all ?* The words, in this view 
 of them, furnifti a ftriking argument to the 
 Corinthians, in favour of this great doctrine 
 which had been controverted amon^ them. For 
 fo the Apoftle reminds them, that they were not 
 only taught this doctrine by his and the preach- 
 ing of others, but that Baptifm, a (landing in- 
 iHtution in the church, fignificantly exprefTed it; 
 and that therefore, if there were no refurre6lion, 
 this facred rite fhould be laid afide. Nor does 
 the connexion of the words with what he had 
 been juft declaring concerning the deftruAion 
 of death, and the final confummation of all 
 things, render this fenfe of them unnatural and 
 inproper. But whether this interpretation be 
 the genuine one, 1 fubmit. Agreeable, how- 
 ever, to it a Writer (^) on the fubjed fays, Som% 
 
 (y) Pr. John Iclwaids, Enquiry into four remarkable 
 texts, p. 143. 
 
to Tmmerfjon cofifidered. 105 
 
 of th fathers hold, that the Jpojiles argument in the 
 iext is of this fori: If there Jhould be no rifing of the 
 dead hereafter^ why is Baptifm fo ftgnificant a fymbol 
 of our dying and rifing again, and alfo of the death 
 and refurre^ion i>f Chrift? For thofe thai were 
 profelytes to the ChriJIian religion, were interpreted 
 to make an open profejfion of thefe, in their being 
 f lunged into the haptijmal water, and in beiifg there 
 overwhelmed and buried as it ivere in the confecrated 
 ekment. T^hk immerfion into the water was thought 
 to fignify the death of Chrijl, and their coming out 
 denoted' his rifmg again, and did nalefs repj'efent their 
 own future refurrediion. 
 
 What our Author obferves at the clofe of thtg 
 fe6lion concerning " a cuflom among the pri- 
 ** mitive Ciiriftians of baptizing over the fepul- 
 ** chres pf the dead marcyrSj" is manifeftly in- 
 troduced, not with a vitw to elucidate the text 
 (for he is not of their jpinion who think the 
 Apoflle alludes to fuch a cuftom) bat to make 
 way for a remark favourable to the pra6^ice of 
 fprinkling. " And it cannot," fays he, " he 
 ** thought that they, were plunged in Baptifm 
 " over thofe graves." Biit, he fliould have firft 
 explained and eftablifhed the faii, before he had 
 ventured to- draw any inference from it. It 
 might be acuftomin primitive tidies (thoti;^^ 
 fcATce fo early as in the apoftolic age *) to tap- 
 
 • Vid. Wulfi; Cr.ras Philol. in lac- 
 
 F 5 Czz 
 
io6 Scriptural AUufions^ he, 
 
 tize in church-yards : but it is evident from 
 hiftory and many venerable monuments of antir- 
 quity, that wherever Baptifm was adminiftered, 
 xvhether in the church itfelf or the yard adjoin- 
 ing, the font or pool vv^as of- ;a ijze^ ^adaptec}^ to 
 
 the purpofeofimmerrionCr).<.:3 vii t1 riiAisv''^ 
 
 And now. Sir, having followed Mr. J, thro' 
 the feveral allufive paflages he has thought fit to 
 confider, you will judge whether the fenfe the 
 Baptifts affix to them, as referring to immerfion, 
 is forced and improper, or plain and natural. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Yours. 
 
 (r) Mofhelm fays, " The facrament of Baptifm was 
 «* adminiftered in this (i. e. the firft) century without 
 «* the public afiemblies, in places appointed and prepared 
 ** for that purpofe, and was performed by immerfion of 
 •* the whole body in the baptifmal font." Ecclef. Hift. 
 Vol. I. p. 104. See alfo Bovver's Hiftory of the Pppes, 
 Vol, II. p. 110. note A. 
 
 LET- 
 
I 107 1 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Hitherto our Author has chiefly been upon 
 the defenfive; but it fhould feem from the 
 title of this fixth chapter which we are now to 
 confider, that he here intends to make a direct 
 and formal afiault: for he objedls to our pra£lice 
 thofe Baptifms recorded in the NetuTeJfament, that 
 do not appear to }yave been admin'tjlered by invncrfan^ 
 but, as 1 fuppofe his meaning is, by afperfion. 
 And indeed if Mr. A, can produce one inftance 
 from his Bible of Chriftian Baptifm being per- 
 formed by fprinklingj or,, which is much the 
 fame thing, one inftance wherein it is abfurd to 
 fuppofe it was adminiftered by immerfion, we 
 will debate the matter no longer. But then, he 
 muft not think to put off his Readers with mere 
 appearances^ or what he may call probabilities, 
 in the room of clear and fubftantial proof. For 
 conjetStures will not avail, in oppofition to the 
 evidence that has been-addaced in fav^our of the 
 fadl for which I contend'; -And now wh-at Is iiis 
 firft inftance? It is, ' • ■ 
 
 F 6 J. The 
 
io8 Baplljms fuppofed to have been 
 
 I, The Baptifm of Paul, The particulars of 
 the ftory, fo far as they relate to the matter 
 before us, are thefe : '* Saul, having been con- 
 verted in his way to Damafcus, was led by the 
 men that were with him to the houfe of one 
 Judas in that city. There he was three days 
 without fight, and without either eating or drink- 
 ing. In that interval, Ananias, a certain difci- 
 ple and a devout man, was commanded by God 
 to go to him, and tell him what he muft do. 
 Ananias accordingly went to him in the houfe 
 of Judas: and, having laid his hands on him, 
 flelivered the mefiage he had in charge, and ex- 
 horted him not to tarry, but to arife and be bap- 
 tized y he reflored to him his fight. And Saul 
 arofe, and was baptized. And when he had re- 
 ceived meat, he was ftrengthened." A<5ls ix. 
 J— 19. compared with ch. xxii. 5 — 16.- 
 
 Now the fum of what Mr. J, has to fay upoa 
 the ftory is this— that " what pafled in the houfe 
 ** of Judas feems, the whole of it, to have been 
 •' tranfaded in a very little time'* — that " it is 
 •* not probable Judas had a bath ini his houfe, 
 •' or that he ihould order a large tub to be 
 •' brought in, and water fufficient to dip Saul 
 ** there" — and that " the Apoftle's weak ftate 
 *' of health, not having eat any thing iot 
 ** three days, would render iramerfion iu3<- 
 •* proper * i" for this I take to be the idea he 
 
 * P. 47. 
 
 would 
 
 
admimjhred hy Afperfion. '' 109 
 would Infinuate (though he has not exprefled it) 
 by putting that circumftance in a parenthefis. 
 So that, according to our Author, we have all 
 the probabilities of time, convenience, and health 
 againft us. And, if there was not time enough 
 for immerfing him, nor water enough in which 
 to immerfe him, nor he himfelf capable of being 
 immerfed ; can you wonder, Sir, at Mr. A/% 
 putting this queftion, " Where then is the proof 
 " or probability of his being baptized after this 
 " manner?" or, as I (hould have added, of his 
 being baptized at all ? But, however thefe o^ 
 jeftions, thus confidently put, may ftrike an iB- 
 attentive Reader j they are really too trifling, if it 
 were not for the fake of fuch perfons, to require 
 an anfwer. 
 
 Where is the proof or probabiMty of his being 
 baptized by immerfion! There is hoih probable 
 lity and proof too. Sir. As to time, (hort as it 
 may ft em, there is no circumftance in the ftory 
 that fo limits it, as not to leave fpace enough for 
 the admin iftratiof) of the ordinance in this way. 
 An hour was more than fuiHcient for the needful 
 preparations. And I know no reafoiv why we 
 may not fiippofe Ananias ftaid many hours with 
 him. As to a convenient place to baptize in, 
 Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damafcus, which 
 Naaman preferred to Jordan, were furely as 
 commodious for a humble convert to be ii»- 
 
 merfed 
 
1 10 Baptifms fuppofed to have hen 
 
 mcrfed in, as the proud captain of the Syrian 
 hoft. Or if Mr. A. will have it that he did not 
 go out of the houfe of Jud^s, why {hould he 
 think it fcarce imaginable that Judas had a bath 
 in. his houfe? Need he be told that bathing 
 was much ufed at that time, and that private as 
 well as public baths were very common ? What 
 occafion then for the expedient of " ordering a 
 " tub to be brought in j" unlefs it be to divert 
 his Reader, and give an air of ridicule to that 
 which he finds it fo difficult to difprove? But 
 if we could perfuade Mr. A. that it is not im- 
 probable that Judas might have a bath, or fome 
 -Other accommodation in his houfe for baptizing; 
 he ftill infifts that " the Scripture mentions no 
 *' one circumftance to countenance either fup- 
 *' pofition * ;'* and therefore he cannot think the 
 Apoftle was immerfed. But, if Scripture had 
 exprcfsly told us, that Judas had a bath in his 
 houfe, and Saul was baptized in it; would our 
 Author have believed he was plunged in it ? 
 I am inclined to think from his former reafoning 
 he would not. ' He might have been at it, and 
 in it, and yet not dipped in it.* And now as 
 to the Apoftle's weak ftate of health ; Mr.-^. has 
 only infinuated the objedicn, not avowed it. 
 I will however juft obferve upon it, that though 
 his ftrength might be in a degree cxhaufted by 
 failing, this did not render bathing improper; 
 Bor could he apprehend any incp.qvQAiwice .froip 
 
 ♦ P. 48. 
 
adminiftered hy Afprjion, 1 1 1 
 
 it, who was jufl: before miraculoufly reftored td 
 his fight. Thus all our Author's improbabilities 
 yaniih. But as he ftill afics, where is t\\Q proof 
 that he was irnmerfed? I will tell him. The 
 fa'cred Hiftorian has afTured us of the fa£l, by 
 exprefsly declaring he was baptized^ dipped or 
 plunged, as Ihave proved the word fignifies* 
 
 2. The next inftahces Mr. J. mentions of 
 perfons *' who do not appear to have been irn- 
 merfed " are thofe of Cornelius and the other 
 Gentile converts affembled in his houfe, '^ The 
 Holy'Ghofl^ it {ctms^ falling upon them as they heard 
 the wordy Peter faid^ Can any man forbid ivater^ 
 that ihefe Jhouhl not be baptized^ which have received 
 the Holy Ghojl, as well as we? And he commanded 
 them to be baptized in the name of the Lord'\ hOiz x, 
 44 — 48. Upon this fhort flory y\.x,A, obferves, 
 *« that nothing is faid here that fliould induce 
 ** us to think that Cornelius had proper convex 
 " niencies in his houfe for plunging thefe conf 
 *' verts*/' from whence he would conclude they 
 were not plunged. But what flrange reafon- 
 ing is this ! It is juft as if a perfon were to infift, 
 that Paul did not adminifter the other ordinartcp 
 to the difciples at Troas ; becaufe, though it is 
 exprefsly declared he broke bread to them, yet 
 it does not appear from the ftory that he had thfe 
 proper conveniencies for the celebration of it, 
 there being no mention made of their having 
 furnifhed themfelves with wine. Wc fay, and 
 
 f P. 4S. 
 
 have 
 
112 Baptifms fuppofed to have heen 
 
 have proved, that the word baptize fignifics to 
 plunge. Our Author admits that this is, at leaft, 
 one fenfe of the word. Since therefore the Gen- 
 tile converts are faid to have been baptized, 
 what has he to obje£i to their having been 
 plunged I Why, that we are not ioJd of their 
 having proper conveniencies for the purpofe. Is 
 not this frivolous to the laft degree? Mr. J.^s 
 bufinefs is to prove from the flory, that it is abfurd 
 to fuppofe they were dipped, the circumftanccs 
 of time, place or health not admitting of it. 
 Till he has done this, fuch, remarks as thefe will 
 with a conGderatc Reader have no efFeiSl. 
 
 He farther obferves, that ** the plaineft and 
 " moft natural meaning of the expreflion, Can 
 " any man forbid water that thefe Jhould not be hap- 
 " tized? is. Can any forbid water being brought?. 
 " and not, Can any forbid that thefe fhould go 
 ** to the water, or be put into it * ?*' Biit furely 
 if Mr. A» will allow himfelf a moment to reflb6^, 
 he will fee, that, as the words are an ellipfls, 
 the fenfe may as grammatically, and as properly, 
 be fupplied in this latter way as the former. — And 
 thus have we confidered the whole of what is 
 obferved concerning the Baptifm of Cornelius, 
 and the Gentile converts with him.. Which 
 leads us,^ 
 
 3. To the cafe of the Jailor, The {lory I for- 
 bear to relate, for the fake of brevity. We have 
 
 it 
 
ddminijlered hy Afperjlon, 113 
 
 it at large, A6ls xvi. 25 — 40. What Mr. A, 
 obferves upon it, in the ftrft place, is, that *' we 
 ** have not the leaft hint of Paul's plunging the 
 *' Jailor and all his houfe at midnight *." But 
 if the word baptize fignifies to plunge, as I have 
 fhewn it does; the Hiftorian has not only given 
 us a hint, but an exprefs afiurance of their hav- 
 ing been plunged. The "Jailor was baptized^ he 
 and all hisj Jlraighiway. Our Author objecfbs, 
 however, as in the laft inftance, that *' not a 
 " v<^ord is faid of his having any place conve- 
 " nient for dipping them." But does it thence 
 follow that he had no place convenient for the 
 purpofe? Grotius is of opinion that there was 
 a pool within the bounds of the prifon j and in 
 that pool they might be very commodioufly bap- 
 tized : or clfe in the river near the city, men- 
 tioned in the 13th verfe. And what abfurdit}% 
 I may add, what improbability, is there in either 
 of thefe fuppofitions ? Nor are the Baptifts driven 
 to the neceflity, as our Author would infinuate, 
 of " perverting the plain meaning of the Hifto- 
 ** rian's words f," in order to prove that the or- 
 dinance was not adminiftered in the Jailor's houfe. 
 They agree with him that, when it is faid ihd 
 'Jaikr brought Paul and Silas out^ the meaning is 
 that he brought them out of the inner prifon into 
 which he had before thruft them. But it does 
 not from thence follow, that he brought theni 
 into his houfe before he was baptized. On the 
 
 • P. 49. t Ibid. 
 
 contrary. 
 
114 Baptifms fuppofed to have h^en 
 contrar)', the order of the ftory clearly fhews, 
 that the Jailor and his family were baptized, after 
 he had brought Paul and Silas out of the inner 
 prifon, and before he led them into his own houfe. 
 For after he had brought them out, it is faid, 
 he took them the fame hour of the night and wa/hed 
 their firipes ; and was baptized^ he and all his, 
 Jjraightway . And when he had brought them into 
 his houfe ^ he fet meat before them &c." So that 
 Mr. A. is greatly miftake|i when he tella us, that 
 V it feems as evident that the Jailor and all his 
 ** were baptized there (that is, in the Jailor's 
 ** own houfe) as that they were baptized at all */* 
 As to the " improbability of their being all 
 " plunged at that time of night," it is an ob- 
 je£lion that may perhaps with a curfory Reader 
 have fome efic£l > but when he comes to refle£^ 
 on the general and frequent ufe of bathing in 
 thofe days, and. on the extraordinary revolutiGA 
 which had juft happened in the Jailor's houfe, 
 the objeclion will, I think, have very little weight 
 with him. Since, however, our Author has 
 thought fit to ftart this objection, he will allow 
 me to oppofe to it the improbability of taking 
 infants out of their beds at midnight to fprinkle 
 them. And, ftrange as it may feem to him, 
 ♦' that the Apoftles, whofe backs were galled 
 *' with the (Iripes they had received but a few 
 *' hours before, fhould in thefe circumftances 
 *' a^empt to dip the Jailor,". ||:the £aa will fcarce 
 
 * P. 50. .ft Ibitt. 
 
 appear 
 
admlnijlered hy Afperfion. 1 1 5 
 
 appear more extraordinary to a confiderate reader 
 .than that of the Jailor's wafiiing the ftripes of the 
 Apoftlcs. 1/5 however, theib.fa£ls are no far- 
 ther irnprpbable than' the fuppofition that the 
 Jailor had a refcrvoir of water in his houfe, 
 upon which ilme Mr. A. feems willing to reft 
 the matter ; I believe moft thoughtful perfons 
 will be of opinion that they are not improbable 
 at all. And now, 
 
 4. The fourth and laft inftance he mentions 
 is in A6t;s ii. 41. where the infpired Writer, fpeak- 
 ing of Peter*s fermon at Jerufalem, fays, Then 
 they that gladly received his word were baptized: a?id 
 the fame day there were added ahcui three thoufand 
 /omU.- The fingle HGt which from this text the 
 Baptifts are obliged to maintain is this, that upon 
 Peter*s preaching three thoufand perfons were 
 immerfed in water. And furely no one will fay 
 that this .fa<5t. is incredible. In order, however, 
 to make it appear incredible, our Author would 
 reduce us to a necefTity of aflerting, that this 
 great multitude of people, both men and women, 
 unprovided, with fuitable changes of apparel, 
 were plunged in water, by the twelve Apoftles, 
 in one day. A very unfair rcprefentation this ! 
 And yet, abating for the circumflance of change 
 of raiment, even this rcprefentation docs not ren- 
 der the fa6t incredible : and incredible he muft 
 prove it to be, ere it can have any efFecSl to (et 
 
 afidc 
 
1 16 Baptifms fuppofed to have been 
 
 afide the pofitive evidence that has been brought 
 in favour of imnfierfion. Let us fee how the 
 matter flands. ■ As to the fpace of time in 
 which they were baptized, the text does not fay 
 they were baptized in one day only : I am willing 
 however to admit, that that was the hd:. But 
 it is to be remembered, that as Peter's fermon 
 was preached at nine o'clock in the inorning, 
 there remained many hours for the adminlftraiion 
 
 of the ordinance. With rerpe(fl to proppr 
 
 conveniencies for the purpofe, no place could be 
 -more commodious than Jerufalem. In the tem- 
 ple, the city, and private houfes, there were 
 lavers, pools, and baths, in great abundance. 
 And tho' many of the people were at a diftancc 
 from their flated abodes, *tis fcarce likely they 
 iwould travel without change of raiment, what- 
 ever doubt Mr. ji, may have upon the matter. 
 Or if that fhould have happened to be the cafe 
 with fome of them, they might furely be very 
 foon fupplied in fo populous a place as Jerufalem. 
 So that our Author need not feel any anxiety 
 for the decent adminiftration of the ordinance. 
 
 . And then as to the adminiftrators, fince we 
 
 are not told cxprefsly who they v/ere, and fincc 
 we know that the feventy difciples did baptize, 
 as well as the Apoftles, on other occafions; it is 
 no unreafonable conjecture that they aflifted the 
 Apoftles upon this. But, if Mr. J, will have it 
 that this is mere canje^ure^ we may affirm thai it 
 
 is 
 
 
admifiifiered by Afperfion. 1 1 7 
 
 is little better than mere conjc£lure on his part 
 to fay, that the Apoftles alone baptized them. All, 
 however, that is required of us upon the prcfcnt 
 queftion is, fatisfa£lorily to account for the fa<5l, 
 that three thoufand might be immcrfed, immerfed 
 in one day, and with eafe to«^ And this furcly 
 we have done : for no one will fay it is a griev- 
 ous tafk for eighty-two perfons to baptize each 
 between thirty and forty in that time. 
 
 Thus, Sir, we have confidered thofe other 
 Baptijms recorded in the New Tejlament^ that do not 
 appear to our Author to have been admlnijlered by 
 ttnrnerfion. How the matter may appear to you 
 and others, upon a refledtion on thefe remerks, 
 I muft leave. And am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 LET. 
 
( "8 ] 
 
 L E T T E R VIII. 
 
 . Dear Sir, 
 
 IN his feventh and laft chapter our Author 
 undertakes to prove, that fprinkling or pour* 
 vig water in Chrijiian Baptifm is ftioji agreeable to 
 fcriptural reprefentations of the ordinance and allufions 
 to it. To this end he tells us, that Baptifm is 9 
 token of thofe two grand bleffings of the gofpel 
 covetlant, our Jujiification through the blood of 
 Chrift, and our San^lification by the Holy Spirit: 
 and that therefore it feems to be mofl properly 
 adminiftered by fprinkling or pouring of water. 
 He begins, 
 
 I. With our Jujiification by the blood of Chrifi-. 
 Of this, he fays, Baptifm is a token or figure, 
 which, in my apprehenfion, feems not very well 
 to agree with what he elfewhere fays of this ordi- 
 nance, that " it does not figure any fcenes thro' 
 '' which our Redeemer pafled [a) ; and, that to 
 confider it in this light is " to make the two 
 *' diftindl pofitive inftitutions of the gofpel inter- 
 *' fere w^ith one another (^)." Nor do I well 
 know how to reconcile what he here fays of 
 
 {a) P. 45. {b) P. 42. 
 
 \. Baptiim's 
 
Paffages fuppofed^ Sec, up 
 
 Baptifm's being " a token of the application of 
 " Chrift's blood for our juftification" (by which 
 application he muft certainly mean faith) with 
 his not recolle6ling '* one exprefs command, 
 " either of Chrift or his Apoflles, to baptize 
 " believers {c)." If Baptifm hath no reference 
 to the death of Chrift, and is in no fenfe a me- 
 morial of it, and if there is no command to bap- 
 tize believers; how is Baptifm a token or fign 
 of our juftification by his blood, and of the ap- 
 plication of it to us for that purpofe? But ad- 
 mitting that it is a token of our juftification, 
 though I know no pallage of Scripture that fo 
 reprefents it ; how does it from thence follov/, 
 that it is more properly adminiftered by fprink- 
 Img than by immerfion ? If the New Tefta- 
 ment is to determine which mode is the moft pro- 
 per, as we arc there told that Chrj/i died for cur 
 offences^ and rofe again for our juftification^ and 
 that in Baptifm we are buried with Him^ and rife 
 with Him i immerfion furely does as ftrongly exprefs 
 our juftilication, as does afperfion. Aye but, fays 
 Mr. J. " We well know that the blood of the 
 *' legal facrifices was applied by fprinkling,'* and 
 " the blood which Chrift flied at the offering up 
 " of his body is called the blood of fprinklirig *." 
 True. But by what rules of logick does it thence 
 follow, that water in Baptifm is to be applied by 
 fprinkling? The Scriptures no where draw this 
 
 (c) Page 1 14. *P. 53. 
 
 con- 
 
i 2 o . Pajages fuppofed to. 
 
 conclufion. Nor hath the phrafe of the blood 
 ef fprinkllng any the leaft reference to Baptifm, 
 but only to that ceremonial action under the 
 Jewifli law. Weill but " the Apoflle John fays, 
 " the blood of Chriji ckanfeth from all fmr He 
 does fo. But does he thence infer that water Is 
 to be fprinkled upon us? The truth is, he does 
 not refer to Bapiifni at all : or, if Mr. A, will 
 have it that he does, cleanfing furely is much 
 better efFeded by dipping than fprinkling. It is 
 alfo true that the Apoftle Peter declares " we. are 
 ile^led through the fprinkling of the blood of Jefus'^** 
 but does he add that we are therefore to be bap- 
 tized by fprinkling? This mode then of admi- 
 niftring the ordinance, as an " emblematical 
 •* reprefentation " of our juftification, hath no 
 foundation in the word of God, however pofi- 
 tively our Author may aficrt it. It may, I ac- 
 knowledge, have fome foundation for it in his 
 own imagination, Baptifm ^^ feems^" he tells us, 
 to be moft properly thus adminiftcred as a token 
 of our juftification through the blood of Chrift. 
 Nor ftiould I have much wondered if he had 
 added, that it feems to be moft properly admini- 
 flered, not only by fprinkling^ but by fprinkling 
 blood inftead of water. For if thefe freedoms are 
 to be taken with pofitive inftitutionb in one par- 
 ticular, why not in another? Let imagination 
 have its full fcope : and then the queftion will 
 be, which has the happieft invention, our Author, 
 
 or 
 
allude to Afperjton, 12 1 
 
 or St. Peter's fucceflbr at Rome. Mr. J. will 
 however give me leave to remind him here of a 
 
 ienfible obfervation of his own " a ftrong 
 
 ** imagination, or a prejudiced mind, may find 
 " an object, and then point out a refemblance 
 *' in many particulars ; but no reader of judg- 
 *' ment and caution will firain an obfcure allu- 
 *' fion (d) ;" much lefs, I will add, fix an allu- 
 fion where there is none at all. — We go on. 
 
 2. To our SanSfiJication by the Holy Spirit. 
 Of this, our Author tells us, Baptifm is a token 
 or figure ; and I readily agree with him it is (o» 
 But the queftion is, whether fprinkling or plung- 
 ing is required in this inftitution to exprefs our 
 fanctification. To give the former the fan(Slion 
 of divine authority, Mr. J, has colle(3:ed feveral 
 paflages wherein fprinkling is mentioned in re- 
 ference to purification, and the Holy Spirit, who 
 is the great Agent in our regeneration and fanc- 
 tification, is reprefented as poured upon \is. 
 Bat, unhappily for him, if he could have found 
 a hundred fuch palTagcs in his Bible, they would 
 not have anfwered his purpofe, unlefs he could 
 have proved that thefe phrafes had a refpedt to 
 Chriftian Baptifm, or, at leaft, that it vvefe high- 
 ly probable the infpired Writers meant to allude 
 to it. Whether our Author was doubtful of 
 fuccecding, I will not pretend abfolutely to af- 
 
 Oi) Page 37. 
 
 G firm i^ 
 
122 Pcfffages fttppofed'tQ 
 
 Jirm ;• but it fcems as if -Jbe were not iil a very 
 good humour by the warmth with which he here 
 addreiles the Bapt-jfts, bidding them '^ not dare 
 " to cenfuie fprinkling as an improper emblem 
 '* of purity i'' and warning " profefling Chrif- 
 " tians efpeciaJIy ,to beware of fuch raftinefs, 
 '' becaufe the God and Father of our Lord Jefus 
 '' Chrift repeatedly makes ufe of the term, when 
 '* promifipg the influences of the Spirit." But 
 what Baptill, Sir, is fo grievoufly offended with 
 the word fprinkling, as not to allow it is ever 
 ufed to exprefs purifying or cleanfing ? The 
 leper might be fprinkled, and thereupon pro- 
 nounced clean ; and the Prophet might fay in 
 reference to that ceremony, efpecially at the time 
 when it was 2.6iua\\y in ufe^ J will fprink/e c/ean 
 ijuaier. upon you ^ and ye Jl:all be clean: though it is 
 to be remembered that the leper was not fprink- 
 led with clean waterj but with blood, and that 
 the main part of his purification, as I have fhewn 
 before, confifted in waCaing or bathing himfelf in 
 ;Water,C^). But there might, I fay, be a reference 
 ,to the action of fprinkling in thefe ceremonies 
 ior piuiiication, and yet not even the mofi di- 
 ilant aliufion to Chriftian Baptifm. Our Author 
 however will have it, "that the word of God 
 *> exprefsly calls fprinkling Baptifm., and fpeaks 
 ♦• of peifons and things as baptized that were 
 ** not dipped, but fprinkled.'' To prove which 
 
 (^) Lev. xiv. 8. 
 
 afiertion 
 
allude to . /{fperjion^ i rf 
 
 a^ffcitlofv'-lie'reftrs lisjtoHeb. ix. ip. where "ihe 
 A'poftlei rpeaTcd' of diverfe bcrpujm (^iatpopoi? $,x'^ 7 
 V!d'fii}ii). But' I have alfeacly fhewn; t^'at ihefe 
 djverfe i^aptiims rcfp.eiSt the -various bathings of 
 prieftsjlevites,- and people; for cdnfcciration, de- 
 filement, &:c. in v/hichTen-fe of thephrale "J have 
 the concui*rence of Spencer,' Whitby, and' other 
 learned' Potdbbapt^ifts Yy5'. ' "^pr' *dofe^; it '?o!iow 
 fr6m the ApoftJe's* fpeakiit^," three'br four verlts 
 after the textj of the fpiiiikling the unclean with 
 the blood ■ of bulls and goats, and of Mofes*s 
 fjDrinklmg the book and 'the people with blood, 
 that therefbre thetdVa of fprinkling is includecl* 
 rn the word- Baptif?n's ': riot to 'fay that a fpeffion 
 can 'feared "with propriety be called a mdd6 -of 
 wafbing.' So that though our Author fhs thought 
 fit to alFert, " that the word of God exprefsly 
 '•' calls, fprinkling Baptifms, and that we have 
 " here a certain proof that fprinkling and bap- 
 *' tiz-ing are the fame;'* you and I, Sir, and I hc- 
 Heve ev*ery doi'ifiderateRcader, will be of cpinioii 
 that the proof; on'v^hic'h he lays To rnuch iirefs^ 
 fails. And after all, if the Apoftle did me&n by 
 the word Baptifms to exprefs the Jcwifh fprink- 
 lings as well as bafhings, it cannot furely be 
 infcr'd from this"paflrage, in which there is no 
 kind of allufion to Chriflian Baptifm, that 
 " fprinkling^ or pouring of water is a fcriptuial 
 *' rcprcfentation of the ordinance.'* 
 
 (f) See page 37 of thefe Letters. 
 
 G 2 But 
 
1 2 4 P^ffages fuppofed to 
 
 But to return : Mr. J, cites other texts from 
 the Old Teftament, fuch as, " / will fprinkle 
 *' dean water upon you^ and ye Jhall he clean — my, 
 " Servant (meaning the Mefliah) /hall fprinkle 
 ** 7nany natiom — I will pour zuater upon him that is 
 ** ihlrjiyy SiC. — I will pour my Spirit upon thy feed^ 
 ** &c.'* Upon which I need only obferve, that 
 if he expeds his Readers will conlider thefe paf- 
 fagcs as fcriptural reprefentations of Baptifm, 
 or even allufions to it, he muft either have a very 
 indifferent opinion of their "judgment and cau- 
 '* tion," or be himfelf, as he had faid before of 
 others, a man of a very *' ftrong imagination, 
 *' or a very prejudiced mind." But he will per- 
 haps tell us, that his view in citing thefe texts 
 was, to connect them with the words of Luke, " 
 *' who, in the Adis, defcribing the accomplifh- 
 '* ment of thefe promifes, exprefTes himfelf thus, 
 ** On the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the 
 " Holy Ghoji,'" And what then ? Suppofmg this 
 laft phrafe was w^t^ by the Evangelifl in refer- 
 ence to thofe promifes, which yet does not ap- 
 pear from the ftory, is there any proof, I afic, 
 or the lead probable ground to apprehend, that 
 the Hiflorian alluded to Baptifm? Unlefs it be 
 faid, that wherever the words fprinkling and 
 pouring are ufed in Scripture, there muft needs 
 be a reference to this Chriftian inftitution. As 
 to the other pailage he quotes from Titus, where 
 the fame phrafe is ufcd of the Holy Ghoft being 
 
allude to Jfperfwn, iir^ 
 
 ^* Jhed or poured out upon us (g) j" if he will have 
 it that it refers to B.iptifm, and that it is from 
 thence very clear that *' i>o mode is fo proper 
 ** and expreffive as fprinkling or pouring of v/a- 
 ** ter;'* let me intreat him, Sir, candidly to 
 confider the preceding verfe, where the Apofltc 
 Ypeaks of the tua/hing cf regeneration. This he 
 will fcarce doubt alludes to Baptifm alfo. Now 
 the original word Aa7v'oi', there ufed, is derived 
 from Ky.u (/:?), which does moft properly, if not 
 neceflarily, llgnify fuch waihing as is by plung.- 
 jng or dipping the body in water. The Septua- 
 gint Vcrfion almoft conftantly ufes it in thofe many 
 .paflages in the Old Teftament, where bathing or 
 wafhing the whole body in water is commanded. 
 Elifha bids Naaman go and K>itja4 wsfli in Jor- 
 dan feven times : and it is afterwards faid he went 
 down and dipped himfelf, iCcl^']igJ]c* And, i^i 
 .plain conformity to this meaning of the word, 
 the Apoftle fpeaks, Heb. x. 22. of the hodys being 
 tvajhed with pure zuater AiX^sy.ivoi to ac-jixa. vS'a^t 
 Kuoafcj, If therefore, in thi-s phrafe of the wafli- 
 ing of regeneration there is an allufion to Bap- 
 tilm ; as Baptifm is therein defcribed by a word 
 which moft properly denotes fuch a wafhing as is 
 by plunging of the whole body, it is fcarce proba- 
 ble that the Apoftle meant by the Jhcdding of the 
 Holy Ghojl in the next verfe (a phrafe fo commonly 
 
 (g) Tit. Mi. 5, 6. 
 
 (/>) A»a^lavo, & qii idem proprle corpus. HeJ. Lejc. 
 G 3 ufcd 
 
J 2i6 /P^fjpiges fuppofed to 
 
 ^k^ t0,(ig5R:i^>i thpidefcent Qi the'Spiirit) .t6 al'Iutk 
 to /prjinkJJogi/isLjtbe^rproFlerniode of hapti^jng. 
 -iApii \\\\% leadfl me tj>.5 ' 
 
 j QurAutbor'sila^ argument in. favour of ifprink- 
 ;Jii5g,; -w^ich 'is taken from the .ajcoount giycn us 
 o/ ihe.dtfeenl of the Holy Ghoft in A61-s-:ii, 3. 
 ^^ktre appeared- unU: them cUven\tonguei^^Uke as of fin ^ 
 :^W ! fuk Mps^n^Xmch of them, ^" B i^. reafon i n gr upon 
 thiis paiTage, if Lj-ightly JunderiiaTid him, is this: 
 John the Baptift, when: the Pharifees and Sad- 
 <iucees came to his Baptifm, among other things 
 iaiU,. Ihideed baptize you zvith- water unto repentance^ 
 "lilt I^ .that Cometh . of tct' me h. mightier ihaniy 
 ruuhofe.Jhoes- I am.not^wortfyth hear: He fiall bap- 
 tize yau vjiththe HolfGhofi and with fire.' In thefe 
 v/ords the Baptift fixes a refemblanc'e between 
 Uie .'manner in which he baptized, and theiman*- 
 ner in which the Mefliah who came after him 
 -ikould baptize. As the former baptized with 
 water, fo the latter fhouid wnth the Hoiy. Ghoft 
 and with fire. So far we are agreed. But the 
 queflion is as to the event. For that, Mr.v/, is 
 of opinion, we are to look to the paffiige ]\xi\ cited 
 from the Aas. - Be it fo. lihat paffage ihoivever 
 <loes not fay, as our Author has thought fit tb 
 reprefent it, that *'the celeftial £re- ^^/"^wJiY/: /'» 
 *''- Jh-eams^ upon the. Apaftles, •and':that ii refted 
 " only upon their heads." All it reportsis^ that 
 there appeared unto them cloven topgii^CSjVijke 
 
 'as 
 
xillude to Afperfion. 127 
 
 as of fire, and fat upon each ?if' tlicm. ' And is 
 there fuch a refemblance between the fitting of 
 cloven tongues of fire upon the A^oftles, nnd 
 the fprinkling or pouring water, as to oblige us', 
 contrary to all the pofitive evidence that has been 
 produced, to conclude that Baptifm is mod pro- 
 perly admin iftered by afperfion ? They might 
 be encoixipafred with fire, as well as have cloven 
 tongues of fire fitting upon them. Be that how- 
 ever as it may,' the w;/W, which b often rcpfc- 
 fenicd as an emblem of the Hdly Spirit, as weli 
 as fire, is. faid to have/;7W all th'e hoiife ivhcre they 
 ^ere fittings v. 2. and they- are* f^id; V'.'4. to bfe 
 nil- filled ivkb- the Holy Ghojl:^ Might t^ejr n'Ot 
 therefore, with very near as great propriety, be 
 defcribed as being overivtiein^ed with th-e floly 
 Ghoft and with fire, as having the Holy Ghoft 
 and fire fprinkled or poured- upon them (/) ? 
 But if this account of the word-s of John be not 
 
 (i) Some .Expofifors are of p\rimQV^ that " a& John 
 *' was addrefTing himfelf to a mixed multitude of people, 
 " confining of real penitents, of felf-riglueous Pharilees, 
 " and of fcepticalSadducees, he meant, by the Baptifrfi 
 *• of the Holy Ghoft and of fire, to exprefs both the waflv- 
 *' ing of legeneration througU tlie influence of the Spirit 
 *' whom Chiift fliould obtain, and the deftru6llon of Jerur 
 *' falem by fire as the juft punifliment of the Infidelity 
 •*' and impenitence of the Jews." And if this were his 
 meaning, no one, who reads the accoimt which Jofephns 
 gives of that horrible cataftrophe, can doubt a momeJit 
 whether it beli agrees with the idea of immerfion or fpi ink.r 
 
 ling. 
 
 G 4 fatis- 
 
1 2 8 P^Jfages fuppofcd te 
 
 iatisfasE^ory, there is another (and which I take 
 to be the natural and genuine fenfe of them) 
 that intirely deflroys this boafted argument of 
 oar Author's in favour of afperfion. When our 
 Lord lays, Except a man be bcrn of ivater and of 
 the Spirit^ &c. he means, I apprehend, and I find 
 Calvin, Grotius, &c, of the fame opinion, th 
 water of the Spirit or fpiritual watcr^ the regene- 
 rating influences of the Holy Spirit being often 
 compared to water. Now as fire, in the lan- 
 guage of Scripture, is ufed to denote the purify- 
 ing influences of the Spirit as well as water ; 
 there is furely the fame reafon to conclude, that 
 John means by this fimilar phrafe of the Holy 
 Spirit and fire, the fire of the Spirit, or fpiritual 
 fire. And if fo, he who is renewed and fandli- 
 iied is much more properly defcribed as being 
 overwhelmed with thofe purifying influences of 
 divine grace, than as having them fprinkled or 
 poured on him 5 the former mode perfedly agree- 
 ing with the ufual manner of refining metals, 
 the latter not at all. And I am the more con- 
 firmed in my opinion that this was the Baptift's 
 idea, as he feems plainly to have had in his eye 
 that remarkable predid^ion of the prophet Mala- 
 chi, wherein his own character is firft defcribed, 
 as the meffenger fent before the Mcfliah to prejiorg 
 the way for Him ; and then imm.ediately our Sa- 
 viour's, as He who iliould be like a refiner i fire^ 
 md like f idlers foap^ who (hould // a^ a refiner 
 
 and 
 
aUude to Afferfwn. r2qr 
 
 and purifier of ftlver^ a7id Jhould purify the fom of 
 Levi^ and pwge them as gold and fiver (i). Nor 
 is it improbable that h-e alluded alfo to that orher 
 prophecy of Ifalah, who^ fpeaking of the king- 
 dom of the Meffiah, fiiys, that the Lordfoall tvafi 
 away the filth of the daughters of Zion^ hy the Spirit 
 of judgmeni and hy the Spirit of humirig (/'). And- 
 now if this be the natural and genuine fenfe of 
 the words, what becomes of our Author's con- 
 clufion from the defcent of the Spirit on the day 
 of Pentecoftj to the divine authority of fprink- 
 Jing? 
 
 Highly plcafed, however, with his analogical 
 reafoning tVom this palTage, Mr. J. with an aic 
 of triumph afks us, *' Why {hould any require, 
 " the plunging of the v;hole body in Baptifm?" 
 I anfwcr, as I have frequently done before, be- 
 caufe Chrift and his Apoftles have required ir.. 
 To dip or plunge is the true and proper meaning 
 of the word, all the hiflorical accounts of Bap- 
 tifm in facred Writ pcrfe(5^!y accord with it, and- 
 very many pailagcs, that allude to it, do clearly 
 confirm that fenfe. But, '* if that mode," con- 
 tinues our Author, '*> were CjT.'ntial to a due 
 *■*• adminiflration of ihe ordinance, either Chrift 
 ^'' or his Apodles would certainly have infifted 
 *' upon it." They have fo done ;, for if what 
 was juft afferted be true, whenever they fpcak 
 
 (0 Mai. ili. 1, 2, 3. (f) Ku iv. 4. 
 
 G 5 of 
 
1 3 o P^Jf^g^^ frpp -fid 1 
 
 of baptizing they fpeak of plunging; ^nd their, 
 uniforjn pra(flicc flicws that this was their iJea 
 of the inflitution. Here I would obfefve, that 
 tp call immerfion and fprinkling difterent mode^ 
 of the fam.e thing, is not only unfcriptural, but. 
 abfurJ. It is a confufion of language to which 
 Diodern cuf^.om, and that alone, has reconciled 
 Tjs. _ P'or hovy improper is it to fay, that dipping 
 .and fprinkling are tv/o modes of dipping (/j \ 
 *' They might however," Mr. J. tells .us, 
 *' have cxprefiGd::it in terms fo clear and ftrong, 
 *' as that no honeft Inquirer could have doubted 
 " of their meaning. But this," adds he, '' is very 
 " far from being the cafe." Will our Author 
 then be fo good as to tell us, what two fitter words 
 etjuld be found, to exprefs the bathing of the 
 whole-body, than K\'.cd and /3ii77l<(fst> ? Thefe ate 
 tlve or'y two words, which the Septuagint Ver- 
 fion of the Old Teflament ufes, to cxprcfs 
 (he ceremony of immcrfmg the whole body, 
 as diftinct from the other ceremony of fprink- 
 ling. And thefe the Evangelifts and Apoftlcs 
 make ufe of in the New Teftament, to defcribe 
 this Chriftiati Inftitution^ as if -^n purpofe'to pre- 
 clude all difpute about the niiatter. How then 
 could they have better provided againft our mif- 
 taking their true meaning? It is^not for me to 
 affirm that an honeft inquirer may not pofiibly 
 
 ^{l) See l^lain Account of tJie Ordinance of Baptifm, 
 in a courfe of ktterj.to the Bifliop of VVincUe/lej-. 
 
 •^ 'J' '^ ^ ' ■' ^ ' "■ -miftake 
 
allude to Afperfion, 1 3 1 
 
 miftake them ; for, though I have no doubt iii 
 the world that Mr. y^. has miflaken them, I would 
 be far from queftioning his hOnefty. But it is 
 a fadt too notorious to be difputed, and which. 
 I have already by feveral citations fhewn^ that 
 feme of the mofV eminent writers ampng the 
 Pcedobaptifts, eminent both for learning and 
 piety, and whofe integrity Mr. A. will not call 
 in queftion, have freely acknowledged that they 
 have no doubt about' the matter. It is not there^ 
 fore fo intricate an affair, as our Author would 
 here feem to perfuade his Read^ers'-it is. Nor 
 will he eafily make thofe believe 'who know the 
 Baptifts, that they are difpofed,- as he would in- 
 finuate, to arrogate to tbemfelves authority to 
 decree rites and ceremonies in the Ghriftiad 
 church: a principle which) he cannot bat be 
 fenfible, they utterly reje6l. Nay, I may add, 
 he mufi: be a very great ftranger to their writings, 
 if he does not know, that it is from an a'ppre- 
 henfion of the very dangerous tendency of thn 
 principle, as well as a defire to maintain the ori- 
 ginal purity of this inftitution, that they confi- 
 der it their duty upon all fuch occafions as theft 
 to defend the pra<5lice of immerfion. 
 
 *' Would our brethren," he proceeds with a 
 
 foftnefs of expre/Kon fcarce reconcilable 'wlffi 
 
 the feverity of the fentiment, *' perfaadb its 
 
 " there is no way to heaven but that of gdiri^ 
 
 G 6 ^' under 
 
•* under the water?" They would not: IVlr.^f. 
 knows they would not. Since, however, he 
 has thought fit to put this queftion, he will al- 
 low me to put another. Would our brethrent 
 perfuade us that our children are out of the co- 
 venant, and their very falvation impeded by our 
 not fprinkling them? A queftion which, tho* 
 extorted from me by our Author's failure in point 
 of candour, is fuiHcienily juftified by his reafon- 
 
 ing in the latter part of his work. Alike un- 
 
 candid is his nejtt obfervatlon, m which he in- 
 finuatesy that the Baptifts look upon much wat«r 
 as more available to falvation than a Utile; and 
 which he has defcended to exprefs in a ludicrous 
 kind of language that will do no real fervice to 
 the caufe He is defending: for if cuflona had not 
 reconciled the wofid to the modern way of bap- 
 tizing, they would be apt as much to fmile at 
 the pouiing water on the face of an infant, as 
 •* the plunging a grown perfon in the Atlantick.''* 
 But the fentimeiit he would convey to the dif- 
 reputation of the Baptifts is fo totally ground- 
 lefsy that charity herfelf \^ at a lofs to find any 
 ©ther excufe for him, than his feeling a ^jfpicion 
 that the arguments he had been ufing needed 
 fome farther fupport. No, Sir! they by no 
 other fl>cfs upon immeriion in thb ordinance, 
 than Mr. J, does upon the right of the laity to 
 the cup in the other. And a Papift may as vvqU 
 tell him^ that he e;(pe<fts to merit falvation by 
 
 receiving 
 
fiUude to Afperjion. 533 
 
 receiving the facrament of the Lord's fupper, 
 becaufe not content with bread he mufl have 
 wine alfo; as he tells usy that w^expecSl to wafh 
 away our fms by water, becaufe, not content 
 with a little of k fprinkled upon our faces, we 
 obftinately infift on having the whole body im- 
 merfed in it. We as heartily join iflue with the 
 Apoftle, as Mr. J, in declaring, that " neither 
 *<^ circumcifion nor uncixcumcilion,." neither Bap- 
 tifm nor the fliadow of Baptifm, '' will fave us." 
 Nor will any man of candour queflion our fin- 
 C€rity, while he re£eds that we infift on a cre- 
 dible profeflion of a perfon's having become a 
 new creature^ as a prereq^uifiie to his Baptifm. 
 With Peter alfo we readily agree, that " Bap- 
 ** tifm (Ices net fave us by putting aavay. the flth 
 *' of the Jieflj :'' though it feems a little e:xtra- 
 ordinary th"at the Apoftle flioufd be fuppofed to 
 colled this fentiment from our Saviour's faying, 
 " He that is wajhed medeih not fnve to 100 fh his 
 *' feet" As however Mr. J. has bimfelf drawa 
 n.o inference from hence in favour of fprink.]ing> 
 but only refer'd us to the opinion of a friend 
 whom he cites in a note, I fhall content ray- 
 ftlf with a remark or twa on. what he fi.ys 
 below {?n\. 
 
 To 
 
 (?«) The li>genloM& writer Mr, A. quotes ruppore& that 
 cur Saviour refers in thefe words to ChiiiVi.ui Baptii'in. 
 I acknowledge I can fee no ground in the ftory for fuch 
 9, fuppofiiion. But admitting that the words do refer to 
 
 JJajHilm, 
 
134 P'l/pig^^ fuppcfed Szc, 
 
 ■ To Conclude, Sir, *' ^e refer it to every un- 
 *' prejudiced and candid inquirer after truth and 
 *' duty to judge, on a ferious attention to thefe 
 *' few pages, whether our pra6iice of baptizing 
 *« by immerfion be, as it is often reprefented, 
 ^' abfurd and unfctiptural; nay, whether it be 
 *' not our duty to adhere to it, as moft agree- 
 *' able to what the word of God teaches con- 
 *' cerning the nature and defign of the ordi- 
 *' nance." 
 
 I am, 
 
 Sir, &c. 
 
 Baptilm, our Author does not pretend that they are con- 
 clufive againft immerfion, but only againft /o^^?/ immerfion. 
 So that it HioiUa feem he alldws the word Baptifm fignifies 
 immerfion. And if'fo, how does it follow from our Lord's 
 faying 'tltaf it is enough that the feet ht iminerfedythat it 
 is cnotigh that the fact fee lurinkled? 
 
 ! L E T- 
 
13 
 
 L E T T E R IX. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 TIRED as you may be with the prefent 
 debate, I mull: intreat your patience a lit- 
 tle logger, while 'I fum up wiVat has' been' faid iri 
 favour of immerfion. This I the rather do,' as 
 the plain nefs and brevity of the account I have 
 to give of Bnptifm, will ferve to rerhove a pre- 
 judice which feme may have too haftlly conceived 
 againft ir, from the length and' frequency of theTe 
 Gomroverfies. For how natural is it for perfons, 
 fipon a genei-ai view of the argument, to reafon 
 fhu^ r «^ If the Chriftlan difpenfatidn Is the laf!'^ 
 the moft fimple^, and perfe<5t difpenfation of re- 
 ligion ; and if it dnjoin's only two pbfitive ihfti- 
 tutions, and thofe of general and perpetual uife 
 HI the church ; it is, furely, fcarce imaginable 
 that the great Legiflator fliduld exprefs Himfelf 
 in fo indeterminate a manner, as to give occa- 
 fion for the fe long arid tedious difquifitions, in 
 order to cortfc tb tfie knowledge of his will.*' 
 This,' S?r, 'you' 'are feWfiHle Is iiot^Hhd cafe. I 
 ■^o«ld gla'dly hov/ev^ef, ' b'y thrdwifig togetlier 
 what has been Taid in" a few J)ages, 'remove this 
 
 pre- 
 
^1^6 Comhijion, 
 
 prejudice from the mind of the mofl fuperficlal 
 Reader. Nor need I^ methinks, take any great 
 pains to convince a man of plain underftanding^ 
 and whofe mind is free from any undue bias ^ 
 that the qucflion before us is very firnplc and in- 
 telligible, and that the difputes which have been 
 agitated about it, are not owing to any am.biguity 
 or defecSl in the manner of our Saviour's having 
 communicated his will to us ; but purely to the 
 ingenuity which an unwillingnefs to acknow- 
 ledge a miftake, and to reform an abufe, too 
 often excites* 
 
 Our bleffed Lord, jiift before his afcenfion up 
 into heaven, folemnly commifTioned hisApoftles^ 
 and all fucceeding minifters, to go teach alltwtionSy 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father^ of the Son ^ 
 and of the Holy Ghoji, Matt, xxriii. 19, 20. His 
 Apoftles muft have clearly underftood what their 
 Mailer meant by baptizing^ and their condu£t 
 was, no doubt,, conformable to the true import 
 •of the command » In a courfc of time, how- 
 ever,, a q^ucftion arifes, whether our Saviour 
 meant by baptizing the immerfirkg perfons in 
 water, or the fprinkling or pouring water upoa 
 them, or the indifFcrent ufe of either of thefe 
 modes of adminiftring the ordinance.. What 
 iKould an honeft Inquirer,, in this. cafe, do? He 
 certainly could be at no lofs. Hfi would firft 
 endeavour to get the bell ijiformation he cgu14 
 
 con- 
 
 I 
 
Condufton, 137 
 
 concerning the meaning of the word Baptixcj 
 from its ufe in other paflages in the New Tefta- 
 ment, in the Septuagint Verfion of the Old 
 Teftamenr, and in the writings of Greek Au- 
 thors. He would confuk alfo the opinion of 
 Lexicographers, Criticks, and fuch other learned 
 men 35 are fuperior to the influence oi prejudice. 
 And, having fo done, he would examine the 
 feveral hiftorical h€ts related in the New Tella- 
 ment concerning Baptifm, and; thofe occafional 
 allufions to the inftitution which may throw any 
 light upon it. Nor is it to be queftiond but 
 from thefe fources he would very cafily collect 
 the truth, however clouded by prejudice, falfe 
 reafoning, and the general cuftom of the times. ) 
 
 In the firft place, as to the meaning of the 
 Mirord. Upon confidering thofe few pafFages in 
 the New Teftament, where it is ufed without 
 any reference to the matter' in debate ^ he woulJ 
 iind, that it naturally and properly fignifies im^ 
 mcrfion^ or fuch wafhing in water as includes 
 the idea of being dipped or plunged in it; and 
 that the circumftances of the cafes referred to in 
 jthofe paflages, do not oblige him to underftand it 
 in any other fenfe. In the Septuagint it is ufcd 
 five-and'twenty times : in eighteen of which in- 
 fiances he would find it iiecejfarily fignifies to dip, 
 and cannot poiiibly admit of any other rendering; 
 and that as to the reft, thi& interpretation, tha* 
 
 not 
 
1 5 8 Gonchifton. 
 
 not neccfTary, Is admiflible, and in mofl of them 
 very natural and proper. As to profane Authors, 
 he • vvoiuld.il nxl Sophocles defcribiwg .Ajax' as 
 " baptizijig, or dipping, hisfpear in' the army 
 *'^ of thq Gre^eks ;" Polybius fpeaking of tb* 
 Carthsginians as' <' baptrzing, or finking, th^ 
 *' veiTels'of the Romans- m the fea;" and Plu- 
 tarch reprefenting Otho as " baptized, or over 
 -* head-and'ears in debt:" not to mention avail 
 many other inftances of .the like nature. :Tiie 
 abkft Crkicks, fuch as Co^nftantinc,' Stephens^ 
 Vafllus, Grotius, &c. Would tell hlfn that it fi-g- 
 nifies to dip, or to wa{h by dipping. And with 
 them would agree tlve mol^ confiderable Divines 
 of this and ot-het- Gauntries, nay the learn-eki 
 among Romanlfts, as well as Proteftants. For 
 his' farther fatisfa(Sidn he would perhaps inquire^ 
 Ti^sther,i.if oar -Lord ;rneant« Co enjoin afperfioft 
 as: the pr6p6r mode, there were not words enough 
 to jconvdy, that idea? To .which queftion he 
 would, receive a ready anfwer in the affirmative; 
 Whereas ^.on the contrai-y, he would quickly 
 undcrfiand, that, if our Saviour meant toconfine 
 us to immexfiojn, He could feared have conveyed 
 his mind to us in any other way, unlefs by i. 
 periphrafis, than that He has chofen : nay that 
 it 'looks as if the Evangeiifts and Apoftfes,: by 
 ufing tliE words ^K<y and ^nVji^of in reference to 
 the inftitution, had purpofely defigned to pre- 
 clude all occalion of difpute about the matter; 
 
 fince 
 
■Cmclujion, ^^'39 
 
 >fin6c rth'efe 'Jare. tbe only words the Septtm^hit 
 TV^rfioh ufes to expreft flie- ceremony offrnrnerf-- 
 ^rri^ tlie T^hole b^dy, iis difl:iii(Sc 'from the other 
 Icerdnrartf 'of rf)rink)in J^' 'iq »-'' -i' ' 
 \ Ti-J ''•! J'^r-n ■•> ''> -^i" i^ •■'•''"''**- * 
 
 c^ ; Tildis'ifafisfied as to the trtre bi¥kmn^ of tlfe 
 -wordv 'Wt would go on to irlq'uire into '\\h 
 fhjilciribai fids 'Tecorded \xi the-New Teft^- 
 aiicrlt cbncfePfiin^- BantHiTfi.- Arrd*lieffe "he wou'ltl 
 -ex^o<£^; ;' :iif 'his ■ 'W e*a ' of '-the ' word ■ ' wei-e ' jafV, 
 3t-oii4htl^'pyFfoYi$ ba^tiied' in weh^'-bYMh ^fCich 
 ^p>^tes '<if ' vVaft^r ^s kvBuld admit bF th'eir" b'ein^g 
 ■Mlmefrca''tfiei-eft^V and to read oftheli' goin^ 
 -doWji ^ihto '^h^' wkter, both adminiftrator, and 
 'fTi^ji?<5^,-kn3'^ their' coming 'up"^' out' of it^*'"" Ac- 
 cordingly the 'JSvangelifts" would "telj "htmV thit 
 John baptized the Jews in Jordan ', and in Enon 
 ^titW Sali'm ,' ' decatife - the'rr ti^as muzh wtite?' 'there : 
 that our Lord,' liavirrg been baptized by John, 
 \vef7f Zip Jlraighiway ' out cf the' water : and that 
 Philip and'the Eunuch, coming to a certain wd- 
 ^1ef\'''wk'nt down both }?:to it; and, when^Philip had 
 'baptized the Eunuch, they came up out of it. Noc 
 -would it at-all tmbirFafi'hi'm' to b6 t'old; that the 
 Xjricek partfcles '^v," <«?rr,'ati'd '?xV ^^ fo'metimes 
 ■rfgfrify/? 2iT\d frotn^ fiilce, in" the connexion they 
 %ere'flahd, the fenfe oUr Tranflators have given 
 "theni is moil YiJitural and proper:" i?pr could in- 
 deed the f^cHedHiftorlans have 6th eVwife relate^ 
 the trhinf/ftaticb-of the fa6l; fuppbfing tKey ni'eant 
 
 to 
 
 ii 
 
140 Concliifim, 
 
 to convey the idea of immerfion. Zo that if the 
 like fieedoms were taken with languages in other 
 inftances, as feme objectors think themfelves at 
 liberty to ufe in the prcfent cafe, the natural and 
 obvious meaning of any writer might be eafily 
 perverted, and the plaineft fadts in hiftory be 
 rendered doubtful and precarious. Upon exa- 
 mining farther the other Baptifms, recorded in a 
 fumraary way, in the A(Sls, fuch as thofe of the 
 Jews, Paul, Cornelius, and the Philippian Jai- 
 lor j he would rn^et with no one circumftance 
 that fliould "render it abfurd to fuppofe that they 
 were plunged in water. Thus v/ould he find 
 the hiftories of the New Teftament exa^Iy ac- 
 cording with the fenfe in which he had inter- 
 preted the word of the inftitution. 
 
 To obtain flill farther light upon the mattcF, 
 and to put the queflion beyond all difpute, he 
 would carefully examine all thofc pafiages in the 
 New Teftament which allude to Baptifm, at the 
 fame time laying no other flrefs upon them 
 than the nature of all allufive evidence will 
 clearly warrant. Hearing our Saviour fay, in 
 the near profpecl of very grievous and pungent 
 fufferings, that He had a Baptifm to be baptized 
 mth, he would very naturally inquire which idea 
 w6uld give the greateft force and energy to the 
 fcntiment He defigned to convey; whether his 
 being ovcrvuhclmed both body and foul in trouble, 
 
 or 
 
Conclufion* iJfg 
 
 err his hclng fprini/ed therewith. Reading in the 
 Epiftles, that profeffing Chriftians are confidered' 
 as having been buried with Chri/i in Baptifm^ as 
 h2Lv\ng arifert with Chfi/i, and as having put on 
 Chri/i 't as it would ftrike him inftantly that here 
 are manifeft allufions to the primitive manner of 
 baptizing, (o he would be apt to conclude that 
 thai muft have been by immerfton', iince, if it were 
 by fprinkling or pouring of water, the ideas of a 
 burial, a refurrecStion, and a change of raiment, 
 would be intirely loft. And hearing the Apoftlc 
 Peter fpeak of the falvation of Noah and his 
 family in the ark, amidft the waters of the flood, 
 as typical of Boptifm^ that is, of our falvation by 
 the refurre<Slion of Chrift, fo fignificantly ex- 
 prefled by this facred rite 5 he would be apt to 
 infer, that there is a much more natural reference 
 in this paflage to tmmerfton than ofperfion. 
 
 Nor would he flightly pafs over the words of 
 John the Baptift to his difciples, that as he baptized 
 them with water, fo Chriji ivould baptize them with 
 the Holy Ghojl and fire. But, refle<Sling that moft 
 probably the Baptift had that memorable pro- 
 phecy of Malachi in his eye, wherein, he hiin- 
 felf being fir ft defcribed, the MeiTiah is reprc- 
 fented as coming after him in the character <u\' a 
 Refinery he would be apt to conclude that John's 
 meaning muft be, " that as he plunged his dif- 
 '' ciples in water, fo Chrlft fhould, agreeable to 
 ** this prophecy, as a Refiner purify his difciples 
 
 " with 
 
ig^2{ Cmelufion, 
 
 ^^^with fgirjtuaj fire, laying them tljereih,: as^ ^hie 
 *Jv^'efiner does hi^,itie,tals ^n; order' to purge, a way 
 *' the drofs." And hovve\<er the Author to the 
 IJehrews fpeaks of diverfe wajhin^s-^- he woulJ» 
 iij^rce^ from thence infer, ^ in the face of all this 
 pqfilfive evidence to the contrary, that Chriiiian 
 Bajptifm is, to, be admjniftered as well by'Tprinlc- 
 Ling^ as im^ieicf^on,: but wouM natura%. .enough 
 fuppofe (not, ta fay how improper it- ilto fpeak: 
 of fprinkling as a mode of wafhing) that the di- 
 verfity there fpoken of might refer to the various 
 forts of perfons baptized,, and the various ••pwr* 
 pofcs of their feveral Baptifms, viz^ fcf cbnfc- 
 cration, purificatioji,, &c. in which fenfe of the 
 text he . v/ou 1 d fi nd fpme _ ofi ( the^ , moft .torned 
 Commentators agreeing with him. — And thus, 
 finding the difncukies in- the way of his inquiries 
 much lefs confiderable jthaii he. might perhaps at 
 fetting out have expe6^ed, he would have the 
 plcafure of feeing thelfenfe, in whith, with the 
 concurrent opinion of 'the" ableft Critics and Di- 
 vines, he had underftood the word Baptize , that 
 fenfe, I fay, confirmed by the plaineft hiftorical 
 fa(Sls, and the mo'fl: natural fcriptural allufions. 
 
 But, however fatisfad^ory all this evidence 
 might be to an honeft inquirer, there is yet 
 one obje£lion which ^ would bd apt to have 
 fome weight with him: " If the matter be thus 
 clear, how came fo grofs a corruption of a plain 
 
 pofitive 
 
Conchificn. 14^ 
 
 pofitiye inftltutlon to have fo generally detained 
 in the Chriftian world?" Now I acknowledge, 
 Sir. if we coul.d give no probable account of the 
 origin of fprinkling or pouring w^ater in Baptifm, 
 nnd if it could be proved tJbat this practice gene* 
 rally prevailed in a very earJy age of the church; 
 it would be pretty extraordinary, and a thought- 
 ful perfon would.perceive.the importance of-rei 
 viewing the Scripture again and again upon th6 
 matter, left he pdfTibly might have been miftaken 
 in his reafonings. But even thefe facts would 
 not have weight enough in them to induce hirn 
 to give up the point, or td withhold his endea- 
 vours to promote a reforniation ; fmce the Bible 
 alone is the reUgion of Proteftants, and the'-na- 
 ture, mode, and intent of a poficive inHitution-, 
 are only to be colle<Sled from thofs authentick 
 records of the will of Chrrft'the great Legiflator. 
 JBut, in the prefent cafe, it happens quite other-- 
 ,wife. We can give a. probable account of the 
 origin of this corrupt pr^(Slice ; and can alfo prove 
 that it did not generally prevail in the early ages 
 of the church ; nay that it can fcarce be faid, 
 taking the whole Chriftian church into view, that 
 it generally prevaijs even at the prefent time. 
 
 The fource from whence this abufe originated 
 I take to have been this. 'Baptifm camd very 
 early to be confidered as ab!<)lutely necefTary to 
 falvation. This error arofe, I cor?je6lure,. from 
 
 fa mif- 
 
144 CotJcluJlGK. 
 
 a miftaken Interpretation of thofe words of our 
 Saviour *, Except a ma?i be horti of waier^ and of 
 the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, 
 TheClinici, therefore, that is, perfons confined 
 to their beds by ficknefs, not being in circum- 
 ftances capable of receiving Baptifm by immer- 
 fion, rather than pafs out of life without fub* 
 niitting to a rite of fuch importance, received 
 this fuppofititious kind of Baptifm by fprinkling 
 or pouring of water. But, as this departure from 
 the original mode of baptizing was only admit- 
 ted in extraordinary cafes, as appears by an 
 flpiftle of Cyprian to Magnus f ; fo it was at 
 that time doubted, whether thofe who were faid 
 -to be baptized this way might be accounted 
 Chriftians. This is plain from the following 
 paflage in the Epiftle jufi: referred to: Ton ajky 
 my deareji fon^ what is my opi?iion rcfpe^iing thofe 
 ivho are baptized while languijlnng under bodily dif- 
 tempers^ whether they are to be deemed true Chrijiians^ 
 fmce they have not been wajhed with the falutary water ^ 
 but have only had it poured upon them %, So that 
 in this paflage, and many others that might be 
 
 * John iii. 5. 
 
 f Ncceflitate iirgente in aegrltudine baplizitl, &r. 
 Cyprian. Epifl. 69. ad Magnum. 
 
 J Qvj^oefiftl etiam, fili charifTime, quid mihi de illis vi- 
 deatur qui in Infirniitate & languore giatiam Dei con!e- 
 quuntur, an h;;bendi fint legitimi Chriftianl. eo quod aqua 
 fiiiatari non loti fint, it'\ peifuli* Cyprian, ibid, 
 
 1 cited 
 
Conclufion. 145- 
 
 cited from the early Fathers of the church, it is 
 clear that immerfion was the ordinary mode of 
 baptizing for three or four centuries after Chrift. 
 And though it might naturally be expeded that 
 afperfion, introduced in the manner you hav?j 
 feen, and with all the advantages of eafe and in- 
 dulgence to recommend it, would quickly gain 
 ground in the world j yet it was a long while 
 before it became fo general as at the prefent time. 
 Of this. Sir, withont entering into a farther de- 
 tail of the hiftory of Baptifm, you will be fuf- 
 ficiently convinced, by reflccSting a moment 
 upon two refpedlable authorities already rcfer'd 
 to : the one a Romifli Prelate, and the other a 
 Proteftant Divine of this country. The former, 
 I mean the Bifliop of Meaux, and Preceptor to 
 the French King, fays *, We are able to inake it 
 appear by the a^s of councils^ and by the ancient ri- 
 tuals^ that for 1 300 years Baptifm zvas thus admi^ 
 nijiered (that is, by immerfion) throughout the 
 whole churchy as far as was poffille. And the lat- 
 ter, the learned Dr. Whitby f, allures us, that 
 immerfion was religioufiy obferved by all Chrijlians- 
 for thiriee?i centuries. In this country, you are 
 fenfible, it was pra^tifed till the beginning of the 
 laft century ; and that it is ftill enjoined by the 
 Rubrick of the Church of England, which orders 
 the child to be dipped difcrcetly and warily. 
 
 * Le Traite de MefTire J. B. Bofluet de la communion 
 fous les deux efpeces, Partie II. § i, 
 
 •f Comment, Rom, vi. 4-. 
 
 H And^ 
 
146 Conchfion, 
 
 And, if we extend our views to the whole Chrif- 
 tian church, it may perhaps be affirmed that im- 
 merHan prevails, even at the prefcnt time, more 
 generally than afperfio^n. For Dr. Johr^ Glen 
 
 King tells us, that // ;*; uniformly pr a £f if ed in the 
 
 Greek church *; which church, he in another 
 
 place afiures us, has a greater extent sf territory 
 than the Latin, with all the branches which arc 
 fprung from it f. 
 
 Thus have I laid before you, my dear Sir, 
 the fum of the argument in favour of Baptifmal 
 Jmmerfion. And, as 1 am well perfuaded you 
 feel the force of it, fo you will readily agree with 
 me in vvifiiing, that a more general attention 
 v/ere paid to a very fenfible obfervation of Arch- 
 bilhop Tillotfon J, and the feafonable advice he 
 grounds upon it j with which I fhall take my 
 leave of you. In procefs of time, fays he, the 
 heft injlitutions are apt to decline, and by infenjtbh 
 degrees to fweyve, and depart from the p^rfe^iion. 
 of their frj] flate \ and therefore it is a good rule, to 
 preferve things from corruption and degeneracy, often 
 to look back to the firjl injlitation, and by that to cor^ 
 r<£l ihofe imperfeSiions and errors whieh will almofi 
 unavoidably creep in with time, I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Your aifeclioiiate Friend, and humble Servant^ 
 
 Samuel Stennett. 
 
 * King^s Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Cliurch:i 
 p. ,51. 1 p. 3, 
 
 ^ Vol, II. p. 170, edit* f©l. 
 
L/itely ptibli/lied by the fame Author^ 
 A New Edition, in Two Volumes Duodecimo^ 
 
 Discourses on Personal Religion. 
 
 Printed for J. Buckland, in Pater-nofter-Row ; 
 G. Keith, in Gracechurch-Street ; W. Harris, in 
 St. Paul's Church-Yard ; W. Brown, the Corner of 
 Ellex-Street, Strand; and R. Biihop, near Leicefler- 
 Fields. 
 
 Where msiy be had, 
 
 A few remaining Copies of the former Edition in 
 Oftavo, and feveral Sermons, by the fam^ Author*, 
 on publick Occafions.