A vindication of the apostolick and primative manner of baptizing by immersion in a letter to Mr. George Keith : with remarks upon a second friendly epistle written to him / from one who stiles himself Trepidantium Malleus.

Mr. Keith,

YOU have very commendably diſengag'd your ſelf from many Prejudices in • wncation and Intereſt, to make an Impartial Enquiry into the True Principles of Chriſtian Religion; but you muſt expect the ſame Diſcouragements for ſo doing, that every honeſt Enquirer before you, has met withal. Your Old Friends will reproach you with Apoſtacy, and your New Ones, if you be not well aware, will make you an Apoſtate from Truth. The ſeveral Zealots from all Quarters fill your Ears with, Lo! here is Truth, and Sing Loud Hoſannah's to their ſeveral Syſtems; but I hope you are ſo good and ſo wiſe a Man, as to believe 'em at your leiſure. Your having been impoſed upon already, ought to make you wary and cautious in giving your Aſſent for the future; and I am ſure you cannot juſtifie it to your own Underſtanding, if you too haſtily engage in any Religious Communion amongſt us. You have ſeen enough of Fair Pretence to Truth and Goodneſs, ſo as not to be readily drawn in by a Specious Appearance. Believe not every Spirit, is a Divine Oracle, and you had never greater reaſon to regard it than now, when every Party aims at making you their Proſelyte. You do well to hear, and examine what they ſay, but your Prudence will Inſtruct you to conſider whom you take for your Guide. Give me leave as your Friend to put you only in mind of the Men of whom you ought to beware.

Firſt, I think you ought to beware of the Courtſhip and Diſcourſes of the Men of mighty Pretences and Confidence, who talk over all their Scheme in Religion, with the ſame Aſſurance as if they had Immediate Inſpiration; nay, if you can have Faith to believe 'em, they won't fail to let you know they are often Inſpir'd.

In the next place, you ought to beware of the Men of Exceſs in Devotion, or the Devout Biggots, who by the Luſtre of their Specious Piety, may tempt you to fall in Love with their miſtaken Principles.

In the Third place, be ſure to be upon your Guard when you happen to Converſe with ſome Perſons truly Religious; who nevertheleſs will not allow you the uſe of your Reaſon in ſeveral Points of Religion, but make it their Common place to diſclaim it, and decry the Perſons who make the beſt uſe of it they can.

And in the Fourth place, I think it will be needleſs, ſince you are no Stranger to Learning, to put you in mind of having no regard to a certain ſort of Men, who are Notorious Quacks in Religion.

In ſhort theſe Men are ſuch Bunglers in good Senſe and Reaſon, that I dare ſay you are aware of 'em already.

But in the laſt place, you cannot be too wary in your Converſation with a Bluſtering noiſy Pedant, who has more Wiſdom and Learning in his own Opinion, than all the Ancients and the Moderns; who is infallible in his Judgment, and irrefutable in his Arguments: who makes wonderful Diſcoveries of other Mens Errors, and more wonderful Confutations of 'em, but will not be oblig'd to acknowledge his own: who marches up and down from Coffee-houſe to Coffee-houſe to hand about his Notions, and to magnifie his Conqueſts: Who looks as big as the Great Mogul with a Scrap of Latin, and a little New Teſtament Greek; vainly admires the in-conſiderable thing himſelf, and more vainly expects that others ſhould do ſo too: Who juſt knows ſo much of Books and Languages as to give you their Titles, and call Things by their Names, and can deſpiſe every body, but the deſpiſable Man himſelf.

If your ill luck makes you acquainted with this Man, you will ſoon diſcover him by his undiſcreet Zeal and Oſtentation: He'll tell you a fine Story of his own Capacity, and bravely undertake to prove ſome New Hypotheſis, by Arguments known to no body, and convincing to no body but himſelf; and if you can bear with his Impertinence, he'll be Scribling on in perperpetuum, to ſhew you his own Skill in Controverſie, and your Miſtakes: But then by thoſe very Writings of his you may know him; for at the very firſt taſte you'll find they contain nothing elſe, But looſe In-coherent Matter, dull Criticiſms, fooliſh Stories, idle Banter, ſtupid Drollery, and in ſhort, the whole Family of the Inſipids.

There's a certain Author you know, whoſe Writings this Character very well fuits; who will at laſt undoubtedly convince all that Read his Friendly Epiſtles, his Apologies and Reprimands, and his Vindiciae Antibaxterianae, that no Man that ever Printed on any Subject, can be ſo completly Dull, and ſo remarkably Scurrilous as himſelf. I need not cite the Pages and the Expreſſions, but I refer you to his whole Second Friendly Epiſtle to you for one ſcandalous Inſtance.

The Author of this Friendly Epiſtle, Mr. Malleus (as he deſires to be call'd) excuſes himſelf with an air of Indignation,pag. 4. from proving that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſignifies only to Plunge, for that he is ſure is a miſtake; which after his Comical Faſhion, he endeavours to prove from the Original Words us'd in the Texts, Mark 7.4. and not as he has twice miſcited it 4. and 7. Heb. 9.10. and not the 11. as he makes it. cited in the Margin.

But notwithſtanding his great Confidence in his Proof from theſe Paſſages, may it not ſtill be queſtion'd, whether his Inſtances have any other Argument in 'em, unleſs it be to prove the flat contradiction to what he aſſerts? For the words form'd from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 plainly referr to the hands in St. Mark and St. Luke too;Luke 11.38. and to make the Phraſe compleat, the Greek muſt run in St. Mark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. unleſs they waſh their hands, and in St. Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. that he had not firſt waſh'd his hands; by an ordinary greciſm of an Accuſative after a Verb Paſſive, which every one of the Authors,Fr. Ep. p. 2. miſerable Grecians, very well knows, but himſelf. Now, that the Jews waſh'd their hands any other way than we, and all the World do, by Plunging 'em in the Water, lies upon our Author's hands to prove; and there it will continue to ſtick; I dare ſay, and without being put to a Plunge, he'll never be able to maintain it.Heb. 9. & 11. But Mr. Malleus referrs you to another Text in the Hebrews; ay, ſo he does: But he miſcites the Number of the Verſe, and like a miſerable Grecian miſreads the Words of his Author, and like a miſerable Logician, firſt ſuppoſes by a good Inclination, that the ſprinkling of Blood mentioned in the 14th. is one of the Baptiſms mentioned in the 10th. and then argues very pertly, but very inconcluſively, from it. And this is the fate of the Firſt Arguments he advances for a thing in which he is ſo confident, as to ſay, they are irrefragable; and as clear as any Propoſition in Euclid: Fr. Ep. p. 5. a Book I have good reaſon to believe he never ſaw, ſince he ſo ſcurvily diſgraces it, by comparing his proofs, with the Theorems of that celebrated Mathematician.

But Mr. Malleus is ſick of this queſtion,Ibid. p. 6. (and I dare ſay his Reader is as ſick of his Proofs) and therefore he proceeds with great ſolemnity to advance Three New Paradoxes. He tells you Mr. Keith, with great aſſurance that John the Baptiſt and St. Peter too, Declare they Plunged not when they Baptiz'd.

Not in expreſs Terms ſure—? No, no, but by good conſequence. Pray let's ſee it good Mr. Malleus. Why, St. Luke in his 3d Chap. and 16th Verſe, introduces John the Baptiſt, ſaying, I Baptize you with Water, and not in the Water, for the Prepoſition is omitted.p. 4. O miſerable Grecian! don't you know what every School-boy knows, that an Ellipſis of the Prepoſition does not alter the ſenſe of the Phraſe?Mat. 3.6. Mat. 3.11. Mark 1.5, 8. Joh. 1.26, 31, 33, Joh. 3.23. And don't you ſee it expreſs'd in the Parrallel, and other places cited in the Margin? But Mr. Malleus ſays, 'tis not Engliſh to ſay, I Plunge you with Water: Agreed; but who tranſlates it ſo beſides himſelf? 'tis a bad Tranſlation, and 'tis his own. But what then ſhall determine the ſenſe of the Word Baptize? Why let Mr. Malleus for once conſult his Greek Teſtament for the three Texts in the Margin,Mat. 3.6, and 16. Joh. 3.23. where John is ſaid to Baptize in Jordan, and in Enon, becauſe there was much Water, or many Waters—and Chriſt who was Baptized by John in Jordan, is ſaid expreſly to have went up out of the Water, ſo that the manner of John's Baptiſm is plainly ſpecified in theſe paſſages. And if You Mr. Keith ſhould ask your Worthy Informer Mr. Malleus, in what manner did John the Baptiſt Baptiſe Chriſt and others who came to him? Or how were they Baptiz'd? Mr. Malleus muſt anſwer if he'll anſwer with the Text, That Chriſt and the Diſciples of John were Baptiz'd in Jordan; unleſs he chooſes to uſe his beloved Tranſlation, and ſay they were Baptiz'd with Jordan.

But Mr. Malleus urges,p. 8. That John ſo Baptiz'd with Water, as Chriſt on the Day of Pentecoſt did with the Holy Ghoſt, and with Fire; and he makes a great Pother with this Argument; and lays about him as fiercely as Don Quixote did at the Windmill. Well, admit it be ſo; then it muſt follow, that John the Baptiſt's Diſciples were totally immers'd, and cover'd with the Water in Jordan, for the Apoſtles were totally immerc'd or cover'd with the Miraculous effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt at Pentecoſt, the Fire appear'd only in the form of Tongues; but all the Room was fill'd with a mighty ruſhing Wind,Acts 2. and all the Perſons preſent therein, were as intirely Baptiz'd with, or in this mighty ruſhing Wind, as they had been, in in caſe all the Room had been fill'd with Water; and thus John, as our Authors Words are, ſo Baptiz'd with Water, as Chriſt did with the Holy Ghoſt and with Fire; that is, by Immerſion.

But the Text do's neither ſay, nor imply, that Chriſt's Baptiſm with the Holy Ghoſt muſt be like John's Baptiſm with Water; 'tis only ſaid, I Baptize you with Water, and he ſhall, &c. The Word Baptize in this Second Clauſe has left its Native Senſe, and if the Metaphorical and Borrow'd Senſe be ſomewhat Catachreſtical; 'tis no new thing, but an ordinary Scheme of Speech, uſed in every Leaf of the Bible. This Word is uſed in another Alluſive Senſe, in Matth. 20.22. and Mark. 10.38. and is thus Paraphraz'd by the Aſſemblies; ſhall you be able to endure the over-flowings of Afflictions, which like deep Water-floods muſt compaſs me about? Which Paraphraze by the way, in the Aſſemblies Annotations is not only true, but a further Proof, that the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even when us'd Metaphorically, has all its Alluſive Senſe from the very Notion of Immerſion.

But Mr. Malleus inſiſts upon it,pag. 9. That the Holy Ghoſt was pour'd out upon the Apoſtles, and that they were not immers'd, or plung'd into or under that Divine Effuſion; and as he expreſſes it, the Water in John's Baptiſm was applied to the Perſon, and not the Perſon to the Water: So then all the force of his Argument amounts to this, that John's Baptiſm with Water was like the Baptiſm of the Holy Ghoſt; but that was by the Effuſion, or pouring of it out upon the Apoſtles, and therefore John's Baptiſm muſt be by the Effuſion or pouring out of Water on his Diſciples.

Now to this, you may give Mr. Malleus this plain Anſwer, Firſt, That there is no neceſſity for an entire reſemblance of a Real and Metaphorical Baptiſm in all Circumſtances as has been hinted before, and he will not be able to prove his Major, that the one muſt in all reſpects be like the other: 'Tis ſufficient if there were any likeneſs, to juſtifie ſuch a Form of Speech, as Baptizing with the Holy Ghoſt; whether the Parties were firſt put into the ruſhing Wind, or the mighty ruſhing Wind was miraculouſly brought upon 'em on every ſide; in either caſe the Parties were totally cover'd and ſurrounded with the Element.

But ſtill Mr. Malleus will reply, That the pouring out the Holy Ghoſt upon the Apoſtles, was Baptizing the Apoſtles with the Holy Ghoſt; and by conſequence that pouring Water upon the Party Baptiz'd, is a proper manner of Baptiſm. Now, ſuppoſe this ſhould be granted Mr. Malleus, That the Real and Metaphorical Baptiſm are in all reſpects Analogous, then it muſt follow according to his own Judgment: That, as the Holy Ghoſt was pour'd out upon the Parties Baptiz'd at Pentecoſt, in ſo plentiful a manner, ſo as the Symbol of the Divine Preſence, viz. the mighty ruſhing Wind, intirely ſurrounded 'em, and touch'd 'em in all parts, and on every ſide: So the Party's to be Baptiz'd with Water, ought to have it pour'd out upon 'em, with equal plenty, that the Element may touch every part of the Body; and not only ſo, but it muſt be ſo pour'd upon the Parties Baptiz'd, as to touch all parts at the ſame time, as the ruſhing Wind which fill'd the Room where the Apoſtles met, was at the ſame time preſent, and Contiguous to every part of their Bodies. It cannot be deny'd, I ſay, if he will have the manner of Baptiſm by Water, to be ſpecifi'd and determin'd by the Baptiſm of the Holy Ghoſt, but that the Water muſt be pour'd on the Party Baptiz'd with a kind of Inundation, ſo as the Water may ſtay and abide upon the whole Body, in every part at the ſame time. And if this will neceſſarily follow; What will become of his Mode of Baptiſm, by applying or ſprinkling the Water on certain Parts only? That certainly will not be Analogous to the Baptiſm of the Holy Ghoſt, which he contends it ought to be. So that for the Strength of his Arguments, Mr. Malleus might well have forborn his inſulting: but the weakneſs of his Underſtanding would not give him leave to practice the leaſt piece of Diſcretion.

In the 11. Pag. he tells you, That it being admitted by many Paedobaptiſts that St. John plung'd his Diſciples; this is accounted the ſtrongeſt effort for the Baptiſts. Pray Mr. Keith ask him, who told him ſo? Not one Baptiſt of common ſenſe can be of that Opinion; for the ſtrongeſt Effort or Proof for plunging, if there be any, muſt be found in the Words of the Inſtitution, Vide Dr. Cave's Primitive Chriſtianity. pt. 1. Chap. 10. and the Hiſtory of the Correſponding Practice of the Apoſtolick Age, and not in the Conceſſions of ſome Learned Ingenuous Men; which Conceſſions at beſt, are but Argumentum ad bominem, or a probable Topick; whereas an Argument from the Inſtitution and Primitive Practice. recited in the Goſpels, or the Acts has that certainty, and undoubted Evidence, which oblig'd thoſe Learned Men to make the very Conceſſions he mentions.

In Page 13. He puts a Queſtion in very Bungling Burleſque. What were John's and Peter's Arms and Legs made of? We may with good reaſon, and more modeſty then he uſes, in treating thoſe Venerable Apoſtolick Men; ask him, what were the coarſe and uncouth Materials of his Ʋnderſtanding? But why do you ask that Mr. Malleus? Why becauſe ſo many were Baptiz'd: Friendly Epiſt. p. 13. All Jeruſalem, all Judea, all the Regions round about Jordan—Three Thouſand by St. Peter in one Day, and they were Baptiz'd in their Cloaths, which is not likely, or Naked, which is not Modeſt, for what Proviſion had they made to change their Cloaths? And this is the Subſtance of Mr. Malleus his Remarks in that Page, abating the childiſh and ſilly Wittiſms—But pray Mr. Malleus, why ſuch adinn with the univerſal [All] do you deſign to make Mr. Keith believe; that the whole City of Jeruſalem and the whole Country of Judea, and all the People living round about Jordan, were Baptiz'd by St. John in Perſon? I dare ſay you cannot impoſe ſuch a ſenſe upon the Text, nor Mr. Keith: and the Text does not ſay what you make it ſay,Mat. 3.5. in the place you referr to, There's not All 'Tis obſervable that Cardinal Bellarmine was in the ſame miſtake as appears. Tom. 2. de Bapt. Lib. 1. Cap. 22. Jeruſalem to be found. But admit it had been ſaid, all Jeruſalem; as it is ſaid all Judea, and all the Nighbourhood of Jordan; has Mr. Malleus ever ſeen any Interpreter that afferts, we muſt by the univerſal [All,] underſtand every Body that liv'd in thoſe places? And has he forgotten the noted diſtinctiof an Ʋniverſal in genera ſingulorum, and in ſingula generum? which his Authors ſo often abuſe in their Comments, on that famous Text, God would have all men be ſaved. They will immediately tell him, that [All] muſt ſignifie in very many paſſages, ſome of all Ranks and Orders, and not every individual Perſon, as it is plain it does in the caſe before us; for St. Mathew uſes a term of abatement in the 7th Verſe, ſaying, that John obſerv'd many of the Phariſees and Saducees coming to his Baptiſm, 'tis neither ſaid all of 'em, nor moſt of 'em; but many or diverſe of 'em; and they that came,Joh. 1.19. & 29. were ſent by ſuch of the Jews who did not come to his Baptiſm; to enquire what John was doing, and with what deſign: and many of the many that came, for ought appears to the contrary, or can be prov'd by Mr. Malleus, or any of his Learned London Divines, were never Baptiz'd by John. So that at laſt his all Jeruſalem and all Judea, &c. muſt with the conſent of the Context Mr. Malleus his Learned Friends and Annotators, and with the Approbation to of his London Divines, In his Title Page. ſignifie ſome Perſons; or, if he will diverſe Perſons dwelling in Jeruſalem, and in all parts of Judea, and in the Neighbourhood of Jordan came to St. John; Mat. 3.6. and were, as St. Mathew ſays expreſly, Baptiz'd by John in Jordan, Mark 1.5. and St. Mark more expreſly in the River Jordan, and that John who ſtaid ſome time in the Wilderneſs of Judea, ſhould during his ſtay Baptize either in Perſon or by his ſubſtitutes diverſe of the Jews; is no ſuch Inſtance of his wonderful ſtrength, nor ſo unlikely as Mr. Malleus endeavours to repreſent it.

But Mr. Malleus thinks it very improbable,Friendly Epiſt. p. 13. That St. Peter ſhould Baptize 3000 Converts in one day, eſpecially confidering (as his Learned Phraſe is,) his antecedent and conſequent work. This obſervation is a freſh inſtance of Mr. Malleus's negligent and inconſiderate humour; and demonſtrates very evidently, that he cannot read hardly a ſingle Text with any tolerable attention to the ſenſe of it.

For, in the 2d of the Acts at the 41ſt Verſe, 'tis ſaid; that about Three Thouſand Souls were added to the Church that day, i. e. on the day St. Peter Preached? and 'tis ſaid, That they who gladly received the Word, were Baptiz'd, and ſome of them might, nay all of 'em might be Baptiz'd that day, but 'tis not ſaid, that all, or any of 'em were Baptiz'd on that very day; nor is it ſaid, that one ſingle Convert of the 3000 was Baptiz'd by St. Peter in Perſon. With how little Reaſon then, or rather with how great contrariety to Reaſon muſt Mr. Malleus aſſert? that the 3000, were all Baptiz'd, and not only ſo, but all Baptiz'd by St. Peter, and all in one day. Another Inſtance of Mr. Malleus his great care to be in the wrong, for he crowds three untruths into one ſingle Propoſition. However to gratifie him, we will ſuppoſe it had been expreſly ſaid in the terms of Mr. Malleus, that 3000 were Baptiz'd by St. Peter in one day. Does he not rememSt. John's diſtinction, between Chriſt Baptizing in Perſon, and Chriſt Baptizing by his Diſciples; Joh. 3.22. compar'd with 4.1, 2. for St. John had expreſly ſaid, ch. 3. v. 22. and ch. 4. v. 1. that Our Saviour Baptiz'd Diſciples; and yet in the very next Verſe he aſſures us that Chriſt himſelf i. e. Chriſt in Perſon did not, but his Diſciples Baptiz'd 'em. And if the Diſciples were ſo ready to execute their Maſters Orders in Baptizing Converts, we may with good reaſon conclude, that had it been neceſſary to Baptize St. Peter's numerous Converſion all in one day: St. Peter could not have wanted the aſſiſtance of the whole Apoſtolick College, and many other Chriſtian Fathers, who were all then at Jeruſalem.

Well then, upon the whole I think it may be admitted, That St. John's and St. Peter's manner of Baptizing, their Converts is not attended with any Difficulties, on account of the Number ſaid, or ſuppos'd to be Baptiz'd by 'em; the only Objection that ſtill remains unſatisfi'd, is to this purpoſe,Friendly Epiſt. p. 12. the Partys to be Baptiz'd were altogether unprovided for this Solemnity, having no change of Raiment, and no Cheering Liquors at hand for their uſe. I pray Mr. Malleus, How do you know that? Becauſe tis not mentioned: That's a Non-ſequitur with a Witneſs; for either theſe conveniencys muſt have been Neceſſary on ſuch an Occcaſion to the Parties who were to be Baptiz'd or not: If they were, undoubtedly they had 'em ready for uſe, tho' the brevity of the Divine Hiſtorian in ſuch Narrations as theſe, is a good reaſon why a wiſe Man ſhould not expect to find it in the Hiſtory: But if ſuch a Proviſion was altogether needleſs in that Country, as every Body that is acquainted with the Climate, and the Habits of thoſe Eaſtern Countries muſt know; then I hope 'twill be granted to be altogether abſur'd for one to urge the improbality of Baptizing by Immerſion: becauſe the Baptized were unprovided with ſome things, for which they had no occaſion, or at leaſt were not neceſſary to 'em.

But Mr. Malleus thinks it very indecent, to Baptize without the Cloaths, and very unſafe to be Baptiz'd in 'em, unleſs they are chang'd. As to that indecent manner of Baptiſm, if he means of them who were Strip'd quite Naked, he knows not when, where, and by whom it was ever practic'd or allow'd; much leſs aſſerted and vindicated, tho' it being ſo immodeſt a Practice, makes one wonder Mr. Malleus of all Men ſhould be an Enemy to it, who is ſo great lover of Indeceneies and Rudeneſſes in his Stile and Behaviour.

And for the hazard, he ſuppoſes they muſt run, by being Baptiz'd in their Cloaths: He is altogether miſtaken if he thinks it be ſo; in thoſe warmer Climates, where Bathing in their light and looſe Garments is very frequently practis'd: And in theſe Northern colder Regions our prudence directs us to uſe ſuch reaſonable Precaution, in that Religious Solemnity, as may prevent any inconveniencies from Attending the Baptiz'd, and him that Adminiſters it. But after all, If Mr. Malleus thinks theſe Little Difficultys, and Groundleſs Objections are ſtrong enough to diſprove Expreſs Matters of Fact, Matth. 3.16. Acts 8.39. Joh. 3.23. 2 Kin. 5.14. The 70. Read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Paſor Tranſtates thus, Immerſit ſe Naeman Jordane ſepties. Recorded in the Holy Scriptures; he may, if he be not wiſe enough to Quit it, enjoy his beloved Opinion; yet let him conſider, Chald. Paraph. intinxit ſe in Jordene. French Tranſlat. & ſe plongea au Jordain par ſept fois — Dutch Tranſlat. ende dopte ſich in de Jordane ſeven mael. if this his Rule of confuting be admitted, as certain, it will be no difficult task upon the ſame Grounds, to confute diverſe Paſſages of Sacred Hiſtory.

Mr. Malleus has but one thing more that has the Face of an Argument, which after ſome confus'd Tittle Tattle, and Malicious Banter, he ſtumbles upon in his 17th. Page,Friendly Epiſtle, p. 19. and immediately falls into one of his fits of Indignation; and then we hear no more of it, till the 19th. when he uſhers it in with a great deal of Ceremony, and tells you this (noble) Argument, as he would have it eſteemed, was the reſult of his free Thought; and tho' ſome ill natur'd People might be apt unkindly to ſuſpect he had ſtolen the Obſervation from a late Writer, yet he aſſures you, and you may take his Word if you pleaſe, this Criticiſm is really the Product of his Profound Meditations; and the Notion, he ſo much values himſelf upon, is this: That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed ſignify's either to plunge or dip; but for the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that has never ſuch a Signification, but ſignify's other ways of Waſhing, excluſive of dipping or plunging: And for this bold Aſſertion he advances (but very cooly) Two conſiderable Reaſons: One is, becauſe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Derivative, and the Other, that not One Paſſage of Scripture can be nam'd, where it ſignifies Dipping or Plunging. Now as theſe are Two very daring Aſſertions, advanc'd with very great Confidence, by Mr. Malleus againſt all Ancient and Modern Interpreters, Lexicographers and Critics; it gives the Reader a fair and convincing Account of his unparallel'd Effrontery: And by this we might have gueſs'd that he dwells pretty near the Engliſh Verſailles in Moorfields; for what elſe but the Temper and Qualifications of the Fellows of that College could have prevailed upon him, to advance a Propoſition ſo groſly and notoriouſly untrue? But to examine his Reaſons, I muſt ask him, Did ever any Grammarian Antient or Modern tell him, that Derivatives for being Derivatives loſe ſome of the Senſe of their Primitives? This had been a fine Story indeed, had any of 'em been ſo ſilly as Mr. Malleus is, to believe it; let him but examine, if he can, his Scapula or Conſtantine or Martinius, and ſee if he do's not meet with many, Ay, and a great many too, of the Derivatives in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that are ſo far from leſſening, that they intend the Signification of their Primitives.

Yet to give him all the Advantage in a deſperate Cauſe that he can deſire, I am content for the preſent it ſhall be admitted, to be the Property of Verbs in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are Derivatives, to abate ſomewhat of the Senſe of their Primitives. Nay, he ſhall have another Favour granted him, tho' he deſerves none, that the very Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it ſelf, in Diſpute is not in ſome caſes excepted from this New Rule in Grammar lately Enacted by him, and his Anonimous Author; and let him make the beſt of theſe Conceſſions: For, unleſs he can prove that it does ſignifie, and muſt ſignifie any other thing than to waſh, dip, 2 Kings 5.14. Mat. 3, 6, and 16. Mark 1.5, and 8. John 3.23. Acts 8.38. Rom. 6.4. Coloſ. 2.12. Plunge or Immerſe the Body of the Baptiz'd in Water, ſo as the whole Body for a time remains under the Water, and intirely cover'd by it; as it's plain it do's and muſt ſignifie in the Paſſages I refer him to in the Margin, I don't ſee what ſervice he will do himſelf by this New Fangled Spurious Rule in Grammar. Every body knows that ſome words in all Languages have a pretty ſteady laſting ſenſe, and are Symbols for one, or a few preciſe Ideas.

And 'tis as well known, That there are other words which by a Promiſcuous uſage are apply'd to a great variety of Senſes. Now when a wiſe Man meets with any word of the latter ſort in any approved Author, he do's not Peremtorily engage and compel the Word to ſignifie, as he would have it, and as it may have often ſignified elſewhere, but takes it in the Senſe of his Author, or elſe he knows, he muſt be content not to underſtand him, which I ſuppoſe to be Mr. Malleus his choice, and no body that I know will envy him for it.

The Sacred Writers ought to be treated with a peculiar Veneration; and if they fairly preſent their Senſe to you, in certain Terms which at ſometimes are ambiguous, but in the caſe before us, are clearly determin'd to a particular Senſe by the Circumſtances of the Story; what perverſneſs muſt it be, to impoſe a Senſe that widely differs from what they deliver? This in good conſtruction when 'tis knowingly done, as it muſt be in ſome very plain caſes, is a taking upon us by our own Authority to eſtabliſh a Scripture Canon of our own; for if the ſenſe of Scripture which in the beſt ſenſe is Scripture, be interpreted away, the Scriptures may be truly ſaid to be loſt, tho' all the Printed and Manuſcript Copies ſhould continue in being.

But Mr. Mallens will have that to be the ſenſe of this ſcripture term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for which he contends viz. that it never ſignifies to dip or plunge. To this it muſt be ſaid, that tis very ſtrange if it be really ſo, that all antiquity ſhould be utterly miſtaken in the ſenſe of a word, by which they always apprehended they were particularly directed in the very mode of ſo ſolemn an Inſtitution. Dr. Cave's Prim. Chriſt. Pr. 1. Cap. 10. What elſe occaſioned the Univerſal Practice of Baptizing in Ponds, Rivers, and in the Sea it ſelf in the Three firſt Centuries? Tertull. de Baptiſmo ad Quintillam. homo in aqua demiſſus; & nulla eſt diſtinctio, mari quis an ſtagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo diluatur. Nec quicquam refert inter eos quo • Joannes in Jordane, Petrus in Tibure tinxit. which is mention'd by Tertullian and others, not as a late Innovation, but a conſtant undiſputed uſage. So that one may ſafely challenge any one inſtance to be produced for the different mode of Baptiſm during the Two firſt Centuries, unleſs we may except the Baptiſm of Clinicks, or Perſons confin'd to their Beds, and at the point of Death, which however was look'd upon as defective for the Party ſo Baptiz'd could not be admitted to Holy Orders. The Jews as their Writers aſſure us, were wont to Baptize their Proſelytes, for ſome time before our Saviour; and their mode of Baptiſm is agreed by all Learned Men to have been byMerſatione non profuſione ag • ſolitum hunc ritum, indicant & vocis proprietas, & loca ad eum ritum delecta. Joh. 3.33. Act. 8.38. & alluſiones, Rom. 6.3, 4. Coloſ. 2.12. Immerſion. And if he does but conſult the Synopſis Criticorum on the 6th verſe of the 3d Chap. of Matt. he will find himſelf confuted by that Learned Gentleman that made that uſeful Collection, who will tell him Baptiſm us'd to be celebrated by Immerſion or putting the party Baptiz'd into the Element, and not by Profuſion, or pouring the Element upon him. And further, that this appear'd by the proper ſenſe of the Word, and the places conſtantly choſen for that Solemnity, &c. But why do I refer him to this Gentleman? or what need have I to ſend him to any particular Annotator? All the Proteſtant and all the Popiſh, all the Ancient and Modern both Greek and Latin Interpreters are agreed in this that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies to Immerge or Dip in 3 Mat. 1 Mar. 3 John, Tertullian conſtantly Tranſlates it by Tingo. 8th of the Acts, and 6 Rom. and 2 Coloſ. whatever it may ſignifie elſewhere: And as all agree in that ſenſe of the Word, ſo all the Ancient Eaſtern Churches agreed in the mode of Immerſion. And as was ſaid before, very few, if any Inſtances to the contrary can be produced by this miſerable Grecian Mr. Malleus, or any of his Learned London Divines. But had a Man leiſure to collect the Proofs from Antiquity for the Primitive uſage of Baptiſm by Immerſion, they are for Number, and evidence ſo many and ſo conſiderable, that the very Paſſages tranſcrib'd would ſoon grow into a pretty hanſom Volume: And any Man who had juſt dipt into the Writings of the Fathers, or but conſulted the Centuriators upon the Article of Baptiſm in the three or four Firſt ſeveral Ages of Chriſtianity, could not be ſo ſtupid as to queſtoin the ſenſe they gave to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the paſſages to which I have already referr'd Mr. Mallens.

There was indeed, at the time of the famous firſt Council at Nice, 46 and 49 Canone Apoſtol. Concil. Tom. 1. edit. Paris. and for a good while after, a debate between the Arians and Trinitarians about Baptiſm, by a ſingle and trine immerſion; and one Eunomius was condemn'd for baptiſing by a ſingle Immerſion in a Council held at Constantinople: and further, this uſage of baptiſing by a Trine Immerſion was confirm'd ſo lately as by the ſecond Council at Ravenna. But never was it yet decreed by any Council General, Provincial, or Dioceſan, that Baptiſm by Immerſion (or plunging, as he ſtiles it) is no lawful Baptiſm, Friendly Ep. p. 6. but a human and diabolical invention, a breach, a notorious breach, an intolerable breach of the 6th and 7th Commandments. Had Mr. Malleus liv'd in the 4th Century, he had been condemn'd as an Heretick without more ado, for ſo bold, nay ſo wicked and antichriſtian an Error: For if a Perſon could not ſcape their Anathema's for aſſerting that one ſingle Plunge in the Water, or Baptizing by one Immerſion was ſufficient, and that it need not be thrice repeated, Mr. Malleus wou'd have been Anathematiz'd without hopes of Abſolution, who is ſo hardy as to diſown and condemn Baptiſing by Immerſion, as unlawful.

How little did the Chriſtians of the two firſt Ages, who for ought appears to the contrary were generally if not all Baptiz'd by Immerſion or Dipping; how little, I ſay, did they dream? that one who thinks himſelf a very Orthodox Teacher, ſhould ariſe and peremptorily Ʋnchristen 'em all in one ſentence, tho' they were then the whole viſible Church: and if this Author's opinion be true, were never lawfully baptiz'd, but were guilty of an intolerable breach of the 6th and 7th Commandment. Friendly Ep. p. 6.

Pope Gregory the 1. of that name, tho' a Pope, was ſo Orthodox in the point of Baptiſing by Immerſion, that he writes a very large Epiſtle to one Leander his Contemporary, Biſhop of Seville; wherein Immerſion and Baptiſm by a Trine Immerſion is the ſubject and ſenſe of every line: The Popes of thoſe times had it ſeems ſome Modeſty, and ſome Chriſtianity; but Mr. Malleus wou'd tempt one to think he had neither.

And Pope Leo the 1. was as Orthodox in this point as Gregory his Succeſſor; for in an Epiſtle of his he expounds the 4th verſe of the 6th of the Romans in a ſenſe that plainly ſuppoſes baptizing by Immerſion to be the allow'd and general Practice of the Church; Ep. Leonis primi in Tomo Tertio Edit. Paris. Sepulturam triduanam imitatur trina demerſio, & ab aquis elevatio, reſurgentis eſt ad inſtar de Sepulchro— ibid. for ſays he the trine Immerſion repreſents our Saviour's abiding three days in the grave; and the riſing of the party Baptiz'd out of the water, reſembles his riſing out of the grave. Now where had the ſenſe of this compariſon been, if there had been no ſuch thing in being as Baptizing by Immerſion?

And to add but one Authority more of this ſort, Catechiſ, ad Paroch, parte 2. de Baptiſmo.—cùm aliquis aquâ mergitur, quod diu à primis temperibus in Eccleſu • Obſervalum. the Council of Trent it ſelf, As modern and heterodox as it is in moſt other matters, has very modeſtly declar'd her opinion in this, in a Catechiſm made by her order; viz. that, Baptiſing by Immerſion or Dipping "was for a long time, from the very beginning obſerv'd in the Chriſtian Church.

But it may be Mr. Malleus has no regard to the ſenſe and opinion of Popes and Popiſh Councils, and I ſuppoſe for that Reaſon he will not much val •• the Opinion of an Eminent Writer in the • Church, who died in Rome, and thought it neceſſary to Baptize not barely by immerſion, but by •• ine immerſion; Epiſt Gregorii Protoſyncelli 30. ni fallor, Tomo Concil. Edit. Paris. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and appeals for his juſtification to the uſage of former times.

However, I hope, Mr. Malleus has ſome eſteem for the Judgment of Proteſtant Divines, tho' the living have no Reaſon to value it, if he had not: And the Senſe of thoſe Divines, is full on our ſide in the Matter in Debate, and point blank againſt Mr. Malleus: For inſtance, The Divines who compil'd the Cont. Magdeb. Cent. 2. miniſtros in aquam Baptizandos immerſiſſe —probat verbum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod immerſionem in Aquam ſignificat, & quod Paulus immerſiorem illam allegorice exponit. 6 Rom. 2 Coloſ. 5 Epheſ. 3 Tit. 10 Heb. & alibi. Centuriae Magdeb. expreſly ſay, That the Miniſters Baptiz'd by Immerſion, in the Second Century; that the Greek Word ſignified, to Plunge or Dip, and that St. Paul in divers Paſſages expreſly alludes to the practice of Baptizing by Immerſion — and a great deal more to the ſame purpoſe, in the 1ſt. 2d. and 3d. Volumes. And the Learned and Judicious Calv. Inſt. l. 4. C. 15. S. 19. Quanquam & ipſum Baptizandi verbum mergere ſignificat, & mergendi ritum veteri Eccleſiae obſervatum fuiſſe conſtat. Mr. Calvin, is as expreſs in this Matter, as Words can make him, for he frankly owns, that the Word Baptize ſignifies to Plunge or Dip— And further aſſures us, for a certain Truth, that Baptizing in that manner was the uſage of the Ancient Church.

And the Learned Caſanbon, his Countryman, Caſaub. Notae ad 3 Mat. commate 6t • .—Hic enim fuit baptizandi ritus ut in aquas immergerentur— quod vel ipſa vex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , declarat ſatis. —non eſſe abs quod ſe nonnulli diſputarunt de toto corpore immergendo—ibid. was of the very ſame Opinion, which he freely declares in his brief Notes upon the Greek Teſtament, ſaying, That the manner of John's Baptiſm, was by Immerſion, and that it was not without Reaſon, that ſome Perſons argued for plunging the whole Body under Water in Baptiſm, ſince the very Word has that ſignification.

This was the Judgment of thoſe two renowned Divines and Crities, the moſt conſiderable perhaps that France ever bred. Let us ſee now of what opinions our Engliſh Divines are in this point.

Biſhop Daevenant in his Expoſition on theſe words in the 2d. of the Coloſ. [Buried with him in Baptiſm.] Obſerves, that the Perſons Baptized in the ancient Church were not Sprinkled only, but Plung'd into the Water. Nay, Dr. Holdſworth ſays more, In bis 22 Lecture. that Baptiſm by Immerſion is ſtill in uſe in ſome Churches, and in others that the Baptized are Plunged thrice, which is agreeable to the Ancient uſage.

Dr. Sparrow, late Biſhop of Norwich, p. 260. and p. 262— in his Rationale aſſures us, that Baptiſm in the first times was perform'd in Fountains and Rivers, and the Apoſtles Baptiz'd in ſuch places. And perhaps there's not one Divine of the Church of England to be nam'd, ſo illiterate and raſh as Mr. Malleus; Vide Bp. Salisb. Expol. of the 28th Art. but one and all of them, who have occaſion to give their opinion in this Subject, admit Baptizing by Immerſion to have been the primitive practice. And the Church of England itſelf directs her Miniſters to obſerve it in ſome caſes, as appears by the Rubrick in the Form of Baptizing Infants. So that every one of her Divines when he declares his Aſſent and Conſent to the truth and uſe of her Liturgy, Rub. in the form of pub. Bapt. it they ſhall certity him [the Prieſt] that the 〈◊〉 may well end • re • , he ſhall dip •• in the Water diſcreetly. at the ſame time profeſſes thus much at leaſt, that Baptiſm by Immerſion is practicable and valid in certain caſes, and is by no means to be rejected as unlawful, and as a notorious breach of the 6th and 7th Commandments. F. Ep. p. 19.

I will name but one Authority more, and have reſerv'd that for the laſt, becauſe Mr. Malleus, 'tis probable, will rather be concluded by it, than by all I have already refer'd him to: And the Perſon I mean, is the Learned Mr. Pool, the Author of the S ••• pſis Criticorum; who with the candour of a Gentleman and ſincerity of a Divine, freely declares himſelf in favour of the Antiquity of Baptizing by Immerſion or Dipping, P. 21. of this Diſcourſe. in the paſſage I referred Mr. Malleus to before, viz. in his Collection upon the 3d Verſe of the 6th Chapter of St. Matthew: But he confirms his Opinion by citations from other Learned Men, and proceeds further to give his Reader the ſenſe of Maldonate, a conſiderable Annotator, Syn. Crit. in 3 Mat. Erat Ablutio 〈◊〉 qui in Eccleſiam Judae • rum admittebartur viz. totius corporis in 〈◊〉 , et it a fuit admiſſus Jetbie. and adds, that the Proſelytes admitted into the Jewiſh Church, were baptiz'd, or as he words it, had their whole Bodies Immers'd or Dip'd. The Talmud, it ſeems, under the Title de Repudio, declares, that the Jews were initiated or entred into Covenant with God the ſame way; according to the ſenſe of two very Learned Men, Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot, in the places I refer my Reader to in the Margin.Selden de Syn. l. 1. c. 3. Horae Heb. in 3 Mat. 6. But Mr. Pool do's not barely acknowledge the Antiquity of Baptizing by Dipping or Immerſion, but thought fit to declare, ex abundanti, that the cuſtom of pouring water on the party baptiz'd, or ſprinkling with Water did but lately prevail in the Chriſtian Church. Pool in 1000 ſupra citato Serius • liquanto in valuiſſe mos perfundendiſive aſpergendi.

I think it may with good reaſon be ſuppos'd, if not fully prov'd, that whilſt Baptiſteries, or places built and ſet apart for Baptiſm, were made ſo large as to receive not only the whole Body immers'd or dip'd, but ſeveral Perſons and both Sexes in diſtinct apartments, at the ſame time,Durantus de ritibus Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. as 'tis certain they were; for Durandus mentions ſome, the Ruins whereof, were ſhown in his time at Piſa, Florence, Bononia and Parma. I ſay, whilſt theſe Baptiſteries were in uſe, Immerſion, without doubt continued to be the ordinary mode of Baptizing. Nay theſe Baptiſteries were ſo capacious that ſome us'd to bury their dead within their Walls,14. Can. Concil. Autiſiodoren. which was expreſly forbid by a Council held in the Year 578.

It began indeed to be a Queſtion about the middle of the third Century, whether Baptiſm by Aſperſion might not be lawful and ſufficient, without a ſtrict obſervance of the former practice of Baptizing by Immerſion: And St. Cyprian, S. Cypr. Op. 76. Ep. ad Magnum who flouriſh'd about that time, has this very point under debate: By which enquiry 'tis as evident, as any thing can be; that Baptizing by aſperſion or ſprinkling was then not an ordinary but an uncommon and rare practice; and the Novelty of it, was the reaſon for which ſome did ſcruple to admit it; and not only ſo, but made it a Queſtion,Cent. Magd. in 3. Cent. de Bapt. whether the parties who were ſo baptiz'd, were truly and properly Chriſtians. How different then the Sentiments and practice of the beſt and pureſt Ages were from the Opinion of Trepidantium Mallens, I think does in ſome meaſure appear by this brief account I have given.

What was it then could tempt this daring Epiſtle-Writer to repeat the Inſolent Challenge of of his Anonimous Author? Viz. to produce one place in Scripture where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies to Plunge. Of whatever Party the Gentleman be, who firſt made the Challenge, he may upon Publick Notice given who he is, have all his own Dictionaries, Hiſtorians, and Commentators ready to anſwer his Challenge. And ſince Mr. Mallens pertly appears for the Gentleman's Second, Friendly Ep. p. 20. but wiſely reſolves not to be concluded by his Authors, (for he cares not what they ſay:) Having arm'd himſelf with ſo much Sufficiency and Obſtinacy as to reject the moſt convincing Arguments from all other Perſons but St. John himſelf, he may ſet his heart at reſt, St. John will have nothing to do with him, that Excellent Perſon was well enough underſtood by all his Followers; and ſo was St. Peter too; and their Followers took care to Propagate the Doctrine they taught 'em, and the uſages they left 'em, but particularly the mode of Baptizing by Immerſion; inſomuch that it continued, upon the matter, an Invariable and Ʋniverſal Practice for two or three Centuries ſucceſively, as thoſe very Learned Men acknowledge, who for better Reaſons, than Mr. Malleus ever thought on, juſtifie and practiſe a different Mode in Baptiſm.

I have now Sir conſider'd the arguing part of Mr. Malleus his Epiſtle to you, and am ready to blame my ſelf for attempting to confute a Pamphlet, which in every Page confutes it ſelf, and has, I make no queſtion been ſlighted by you upon the firſt reading: It may be expected I ſhould take ſome notice of his Scandalous Reflections, defaming Stories, and pitiful Witticiſms which he makes ſport with in every Page; but that's a Task ſit for no body, but one of his own Kidney and Complexion. He himſelf is the fitteſt Perſon to anſwer that part of his Epiſtle; to write a Satyr or Panegyrick upon his own Writings; and if he does it, I am ſure either of 'em will amount to the very ſame Lampoon.

You find ſcatter'd up and down in every Page the Flowers of his Rhetorick, and his Complements, ſuch, as for inſtance, Purblind Brethren— Paper-headed Men—read their Scrible, and learn their Chatt. (a conſiderable Phraſe borrow'd from Old Mother Clito) You'll find him in the 2d Page very Comically, and much like a Pedant, Schooling his Maſters the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines, with an Objection which he ſays, is Ignorantly, Ʋnlearnedly, and Fooliſhly urg'd; and immediately he runs riot into his beloved Moods and Tenſes. And in the very next Page, he comes to his good nature again, and then the very ſame Perſons, are Ʋnanſwerable Ʋrgers, Great Worthies and Eagle-eyd-Men at Controverſie, that knock a Diſpute in the head, while you ſay what's this.

In the 7th and 8th Pages You have his moſt Learned Obſervations, with which his affected skill in the Greek has furniſh'd him. And here you muſt take him, (if you can be ſo kind,) for a conſiderable Critick, or elſe you'll very much diſappoint him in his expectation.

In the 10th Page You are all of a ſuddain alarum'd with his Diſcourſe of the Canon mounted up and beginning to roar, P. 10. and I know not what: which would put one in expectation of ſome News from Livonia. But he immediately diſappoints you by telling you a Tale of a Tub and himſelf. P. 11. Once upon a time I liv'd in a Town, &c.

And in his 15th Page he falls foul, without any provocation given,Dr. R. Mr. T. upon Two Gentlemen, who value his Reproaches above his good Opinion, and would have been very ſenſible of the Scandal of his Commendation; as, I make no queſtion, thoſe Gentlemen are, whom he names in his 20th Page, and is mighty deſirous as if they had nothing elſe to do, to have the credit of being Anſwer'd by one of 'em.

After this comes on an uninterrupted medly of Idle Stories; and by the Texture it appears, every thing that came to hand, was made a part of his dull Epiſtle to you Mr. Keith, that a Man has very ſtrong preſumptions to believe Mr. Malleus to be that very Botcher which he mentions in the 25th Page, whom his very kind Neighbour the Vintner had ſubdu'd with the Fruit of the Vine, and made his Penn outrun his Wits.

Thus, Sir, for the reſpect I bear to Truth and your Perſon, both which I am ſure, are very much injur'd by this ſcurrilous bantering Epiſtle-Writer; I have briefly expos'd his Reaſons and his Rhetorick; if it be pardondble, to give his way of Writing and Arguing thoſe venerable Names.

And upon the whole I think 'tis evident, that his Style, his Logick, and his Confidence are all of a piece, and all without Precedent, exactly calculated for the Meridian of Moorfields: And had he done himſelf Juſtice, he had dated his Letter from one of the apartments in the College de gens inſenſez in his Neighbourhood; and then he had ſaved you the trouble of reading his Epiſtle, and me the trouble of making theſe Remarks.

I am Sir. FINIS.