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 [Page 4]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, [Page 5]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 [...], 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 [...] 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, [...], i. e. unless they wash their hands, and in St. Luke, [...], 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, [Page 7]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 [Page 10]Assemblies Annotations is not only true, but a further Proof, that the Word [...], 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 [Page 11]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 [Page 13]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. [Page 14]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. [Page 15] 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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [...], 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 [...] indeed signify's either to plunge or dip; but for the Word [...] that has never such a Signification, but signify's other ways of Washing, exclusive of dip­ping or plunging: And for this bold Assertion he [Page 18]advances (but very cooly) Two considerable Rea­sons: One is, because [...] 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 [...], 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 [...] 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 [...] it self, in Dispute [Page 19]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 [Page 20] knowingly done, as it must be in some very plain ca­ses, is a taking upon us by our own Authority to establish a Scripture Canon of our own; for if the sense of Scripture which in the best sense is Scrip­ture, be interpreted away, the Scriptures may be truly said to be lost, tho' all the Printed and Manu­script Copies should continue in being.

But Mr. Mallens will have that to be the sense of this scripture term [...], for which he contends viz. that it never signifies to dip or plunge. To this it must be said, that tis very strange if it be really so, that all antiquity should be utterly mistaken in the sense of a word, by which they always appre­hended they were particularly directed in the very mode of so solemn an Institution. Dr. Cave's Prim. Christ. Pr. 1. Cap. 10. What else occa­sioned the Universal Practice of 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 [Page 21]have been by Mersatione non profusione ag [...] solitum hunc ritum, indicant & vocis proprietas, & loca ad eum ritum delecta. Joh. 3.33. Act. 8.38. & allusiones, Rom. 6.3, 4. Colos. 2.12. Immersion. And if he does but consult the Synopsis Criticorum on the 6th verse of the 3d Chap. of Matt. he will find himself confuted by that Learned Gentleman that made that useful Collection, who will tell him Baptism 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 [...] 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 [Page 22]or four First several Ages of Christianity, could not be so stupid as to questoin the sense they gave to the word [...] in the passages to which I have already 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 [Page 23]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. [...]. 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 [...], 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 [...], 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 [Page 26]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, [Page 27]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, [Page 28]I think does in some measure appear by this brief account I have given.

What was it then could tempt this daring Epistle-Writer to repeat the Insolent Challenge of of his Anonimous Author? Viz. to produce one place in Scripture where [...] signifies to Plunge. Of whatever Party the Gentleman be, who first made the Challenge, he may upon 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 [Page 30]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.