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 't is not English to say I Plunge you with Water Agreed but who translates it so besides himself 't is a bad Translation and 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 'T is 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 Vnderstanding 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 * 'T is 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 Vniversal 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 't is 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 't is said that about Three Thousand Souls were added to the Church that day i. e. on the day St. Peter Preached and 't is 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 't is 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 t is 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 't will 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 Moor-fields 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 t is 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 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 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 arise and peremptorily Vnchristen 'em all in one sentence tho' they were then the whole visible Church and if this Author's opinion be true were never lawfully 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