cannot perceive how the Divine Prefcience of human Actions can be difputed without blafpheming and denying the Perfections of his Nature. He who made all Things certainly fees all the Effects that can result from their various Mixtures and Combinations. He who made the Heart of Man difcovers its Motions, Actions, and Confequences.

"Duft and Oppofition are no Arguments." Very true, but he is more likely to wear the Duft he has rais'd upon himself, than to brush it off.

I am your conftant Reader and Customer,

Upon the Mode of Baptifm.

M. N.

May 21. 1739. SIR, N the Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. VII. January, Marcus gives his Thoughts concerning the Impropriety of Sprinkling for Baptifm. which he concludes can be adminiftred only by Immerfion; fupported by Reasons drawn from Scripture, Antiquity, Decrees of Councils, Rubrick of the Church of England, and the genuine Import of the Word itself. March following he is oppos'd with hard Words and weak Arguments, by a Writer that affumes the Name and Character of Philaletkes, Who is repaid his ill Manners by T. B. Vol. VIII. March. He is follow'd in June by J. L who not taking any notice of Philalethes's Faults accuses T. B. of ufing him with Pertnefs and Contempt, and reprefents T. B. as ignorant and full of himself. In Vol. IX. p. 10, 11. Marcus bravely refolv'd to facrifice every Innovation to Truth, refumes the Debate, and having in few words fhewn the Vanity of I. L's Obfervations, and increafed his own Strength, he wishes fome more learned Difputants engaged in the Controverfy, and leaves it. In p. 113, 114. J. L. (Learned and Judicious enough to be fure) undertakes to reply to him. At his first fetting out [A] he pays a juft respect to M.'s Candor and Ingenuity, with which and his good Chriftian Temper, he feems abundantly well pleas'd: But does he not infinuate, p. 114. [B] that notwithstanding this Candor and Ingenuity he is yet one of those that imagine 'emselves wifer and more knowing than any body elfe; and D. for all his good Chriftian Temper, he had rather wrangle about Baptism, than seek the Virtues, or perform the Duties it obliges to.

I fuppofe M.'s and other Readers concluded from what J. L. fays, Vol. VIII. p. 285. B. his Defign in that Piece was to evince that Baptizo, a's used in Scripture, fignifies to pour or sprinkle, as well as dip or immerfe; here he tells us, It was only to fhew, That the virtue, force and energy of this Sacrament is not placed in Dipping, p.113. B. If this was his' Delign, he ought to have told in what it is placed: I am perfwaded he dares not pretend that it was placed in Sprinkling or Pouring, any more than in Immerfion, or that they are any more effential to Baptism than

it:

*I ufe the word Immersion rather than Dip, because I think the Idea that is ufually affix'd to Dip is not extenfive enough for the word Baptize, which may be properly used if a Child be taken up and put into Water, or be laid down in a Veffel, and Water put on, so as to cover it; or if a Perfon go into Water, or lay himself, or be laid by another in it. Now we Jhould use the word Dip only in the firft Cafe, whereas Iminerfe, I Conceive equally with Baptize, includes 'em all.

it: And if fo, according to him, all Three are needlefs, as to any concern we have in the virtue, &c. of this Sacrament.

What he fays about Pouring on Water is meer Grimace and Shuffling, ince 'tis not, that I can find, ever ufed; The Minifter's dipping his Fingers in Water, bringing 'em over the Child's Face, and then letting the Water fall on it, cannot with any propriety be call'd Pouring: However, it F. L. can make appear that Pouring is Baptifm, I'll readily agree with him that Sprinkling is too; but this he can't do.

Neither has he fucceeded in his Attempt C. to fhew, that the N. T. Writers use the word Baptize in any other Senfe than Dip or Immerfe in any of his Inftances, Vol VIII. p. 285. One would think fo fagacious a Writer fhould know, that Words, when ufed metaphorically, are fo far from losing or changing their proper and native Meaning, that the allufion thereto is the ground of the force and beauty of the Metaphor; and it's easy to flew, that in every place he had cited there is a manifeft alluon to Immersion. And he may with equal Reafon imagine, the Jews were not obliged to cut off the Flesh of the Foreskin, because Circumcifion is applied to the Heart, and faid to be made without Hands: Or. that Chriftians need not drink in the Lord's Supper, because Jesus by. that Word meant his own and his Difciples Sufferings; as that Baptifm. may be adminiftred without Immerfion, becaufe 'tis ufed to denote the Difpenfation of the Holy Ghoit. Tho' every Jewish application of Water, was not by Immerfion, yet is it not at all plain to good Eyes, that the Sprinkling, Numb. viii. 5, 6, 7, is one of the divers Baptifms, Heb. ix.10. It's mention'd particularly and diftinctly three Verfes below, and is included in the carnal Ordinances; there being Immersions enough under the Law of themselves to be called Divers.

F The frequent Obfervations he speaks of, as to the improbability or impoffibility of immerfing the Three Thoufand, Acts ii. 41. have been frequently fhewn to be trifling, and shall once again: Be it confidered, There was no want of Conveniencies for Bathing at Jerufalem, there were 12 Apostles and 70 Difciples, thefe had not 37 apiece to their Shares, or if the 12 were excufed, the rest had not quite 43 apiece; and a Man of ordinary. Strength might immerfe as many, without need of going out of the Water to reft him.

J. L. [G] gives not the whole Hiftory of Paul's Baptifm, he omits that in Acts xxii. 14, 15, 16. Whether he was Baptized at any distance from his Lodgings is uncertain; but it can no more be concluded he was Baptized in the Houfe, becaufe the Text does not fay he went out, than that Ananias return'd not to his own Home, because that is unmention'd It's certain he arose to be Baptized, which was needlefs if Water was only. fprinkled or poured on him; the Clinicks are a witness of it, which he must not except against. But how it could appear to him, or others, that "there was not the leaft hint of their going out of the Houfe in the "Cafe of the Jailor's Baptifm," As xvi. 30, 34. is what I can give no account of; perhaps 7. L will in his next, when he has reviewed the Paffage. It appears to me,from this and other Blunders in his and Philalethes's Pieces, that these Writers and their Affiftants do not read enough of the Scriptures, or enough confider what they do read, to judge in this Matter.

That about the Year 300 fome were faid to be Baptized who had Water only

!

only fprinkled or poured on 'em in Bed, I allow; and if . L. be ac quainted with the Hiftory of thofe Times he can't but know, that the validity thereof was much question'd, and it was greatly doubted if the virtue, force and energy of the Sacrament attended thofe Afperfions, & and it was not fair in him to fupprefs this. Before that time, and on as good grounds, the Sign of the Crofs was used, which I fuppofe he and Phil. reject, for I take 'em to be not Font, but Bafon Sprinklers.

As for Forbes, Gerard, &e. I fhall fay nothing to them, he only asks his Fellow if he be a Thief; I fhall only defire him to confider, which are moft guilty of Strife and Wrangling, fuch as would be content with what is clear, plain and evident, or fuch as contend for what is, at best, dark and doubtful. That Dipping or Immerfion is Baptifm he owns; but that Sprinkling or Pouring is fo he has no where prov'd: And Mr. Mede whofe Judgment he feems, Vol. VIII. p. 285. A. B. to have a great value for, tells us, in Diatribe, on Tit. iii. 5. there was no fuch thing as Rantifmos, or Sprinkling, us'd by the Apostles, or a long time after.

If Marcus defires to fee what may be faid in this Matter by more learned Difputants, he may in Wall's History of Infant Baptifm, and Gale's Reflections thereon. The Applaufes of particular Perfons, and the Thanks of the Clergy in Convocation, are fufficient Indications of the Capacity of the first; and I fuppofe the Baptifts will not pretend to produce a greater Advocate on their Side than the other. And he may find a good Account given of fuch Difputing as Philalethes's and J. L's in Rees's A■fwer to Walker's Defence of Infant Baptifm. And I intreat him to examine the Grounds on which he concludes Infants the proper Subjects of Baptifm, with the fame Refolution, Freedom, and Impartiality as those for Sprinkling, and I don't doubt but it will produce a Change in his prefent Sentiments, or fomething which may induce me to alter mine, if he thall please to publifh the refult of his Enquiries.

Mr. Urban,

Upon the Mode of Baptifm.

Philo Mag.

N the Controverfy between your Ingenious Correfpondents, about the

*

Mag. Vol. IX. p. 11. refpecting the Teftimony of Bugenhagius, the other can fee no foundation for, Ib. p. 113. becaufe the Title of the German Book referr'd to is not mention'd: And adds, "Nor do Adams or Seckendorf, fo far as he could fee, say any thing of it; tho' one wrote his Life, and the other fays a great many things of him." Poor Reasoning! Who ever wrote the Life of a Man that contain'd even every material Act thereof? and what difficulty could attend the fearch after a Book, when the Year in which it was publifh'd is mention'd, tho' the Title is not? It cannot be fuppos'd that the Author wrote many Books in the fame Year.

"This late Author, fays J. L. Ib.p.114. feems quite mistaken in saying "Bugenhagius fucceeded Luther in the Miniftry at Wittemberg. Adams lays, Suffectus eft in locum Simonis Benkii, alias Henfii. It's not at all pro"bable, that Bugenhagius fhould neither have heard or feen a Minitter fprinkle or pour Water on the Head or Face of an Infant wrapped in 'Swad

66

* Hift. Eng. Vol. I. Pref. p. 22,

66

Swadling-Cloaths. Nor does this late Author's ingenious Suppofition, "that he meant among Proteftants, mend the matter; as if the Protestants of that time did no fuch thing. All that this proves is, the misfor "tune of our imagining we are wifer or more knowing than any body "elfe. This, I think, is enough to fhew, that it is a novel and groundless "Opinion, that dipping is of the effence of Chriftian Baptifm."

Thus the Reverend Mr. Lewis of Margate, in his Hiftory, after the recital of the mad Rebellion of a frantick People in Germany, fays, This is fufficient to fhew, that Infant Baptifm had been the Custom and Practice of all the Christian Churches from the very beginning. And 7. L. has found enough to fhew, that it is a novel and groundlefs Opinion, that Dipping is of the effence of Christian Baptifm. Great Difcoveries! But to justify my own Citation, I am not convinc'd of any Mistake at all refpecting Bugenhagius's Succeffion to Luther by J.L.'s Reafoning; for, according to Adams, if Bugenhagius did fucceed Henfius in Denmark, that is not a Proof that he did not fucceed Luther at Wittemberg, with whom he was a Fellow in the Miniftry, as appears by the Article Hofman in Mr. Bayle's Crit. Hift. Dia. And the Learned Dr. Duveil in his Expofition of the Acts, p. 286. exprefly affirms, That he was both a Fellow and Succeffor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittemberg. Suppofing then, not granting, a Mistake, How does the Fact related appear not at all probable? They are, according to Duveil, Bugenhagius's own Words, and both Thuanus and Zanchy witness that he was a very learned, pious, and moderate Man, and confequently as much, if not more to be credited, than J. L. who, tho' he has faid nothing to the purpose, yet tells us, he has faid enough to fhew, that Dipping, as an Effence of Chriftian Baptifm, is a novel and groundlefs Opinion, which gives him a fair Title to the fole Property of the Misfortune he mentions, inafmuch as I appealed to those who were wifer and more knowing than myself, telling them in my Preface to the Reader, Vol. I. That I fhould hold myself obliged to them, who fhould be pleased to reprefent my Miftakes, promifing to amend

them.

It does not belong to my Province to enter the Lifts with Gentlemen who are pleased to controvert the Mode or Subject of Baptism, 1 fhall in the Preface to my next Volume fhew, That both the Principles and Practices of the English Baptists are juflified even by the moft Learned of the Padobaptifts themselves; and but juft obferve here, that both Scapula and Stephens, two as great Mafters of the Greek Tongue as moft we have, do tells us in their Lexicons, that Ban from Bari, fignifies Mergo, Immergo, &c. And Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra fays, the native and proper Signification of the Word is, to dip into the Water, &c. and alfo fays, fome would have it fignify Washing; which Sense Erafmus oppos'd, affirming, that it was not otherwife fo than by Confequence; for the proper Signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers ufe for dying of Cloth. The learned and pious Mr. Jofeph Mede affirms, there was no fuch thing as Sprinkling or Rantism used in Baptifm in the Apoftles Days, nor many Ages after. He had spoken more properly if he had faid, there was no Rantifm ufed in the Apoitles Days, but Baptifm, fince he well knew they are two diftin&t different Acts. It cannot be Baptifm at all if it be only Rantifm: Immersion or Dipping being the very Thing, not ani

Accident,

Accident, but an Effential fo abfolutely neceffary that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it: Therefore Dipping is effential to Baptifm. Your bumble Servant,

Horflydown in Southwark, Sept. 4. 1739.

SİR,

Upon the Death of CHRIST.

Tho. Crosby.

N 2 pretended Defence of Revelation I have lately read, that.the Death

of Things, and could not have been prevented without a Miracle. This, Sir, if true, I fhould have thought would have come with a much better Grace out of the Mouth of one who was running down Revelation, than of one who was pretending to defend it; fince nothing can be more directly contrary to the whole Tenor of it. The Account there given us of the Death of Christ, and of the antecedent Causes of it is, I think, in brief this: That God made Man upright, but that they foon revolted from their Creator, and fought out to themselves many wicked Inventions; and that God, out of Love to the Creatures he had made, gave them a Promise of a Saviour immediately upon their Fall. That God, according to his Promife, fent forth this Saviour in the Fulness of Time; who, after having liv'd a forrowful Life, died an accurfed Death, in order to be the Author of eternal Salvation to all who, to the end of the World, fhould unfeignedly believe in him, and comply with the Terms of the GospelCovenant. This is the Account Revelation gives of the Death of Chrift the Son of God, who alfo was God. And from this Account, I think, it is demonftratively evident, that it was an uncommon and extraordinary Event, that it was wifely order'd by the Providence of an all-feeing God, and that God could as eafily have prevented it without a Miracle, as have permitted it without one. As to God's making his own Glory the End of all his Actions, he would have as effectually promoted that by the final Destruction of Mankind, as by their eternal Salvation. It was therefore as much out of Love to a loft World, as out of a Concern for his own Glory, that God fent his Son into it to take the human Nature upon him, and in that Nature to fuffer and die, without which the Salvation of Mankind could never have been accomplish'd, in a Way confiftent with the Perfections of God.

Revelation, I think, ftands not in need of any fuch Defenders, and 1 wifh it had no more fuch: As it has stood the Teft of fo many Ages already, I have good reafon to believe (as well as heartily with) that it will be believ'd and practis'd by some to the End of the World.

Whilft others, therefore, under pretence of Defending it, do all they can to undermine it, let you and I, Mr. Urban, highly prize it, and be convinc'd not only of the Expediency and Usefulness of it, but also of the Neceffity of it for our Salvation; for which, if either the Light of Nature, or the Law of Mofes, or both together, would have been fufficient, we may reafonably conclude it would never have been given. And fince we are deliver'd from the burdenfome Rites and Ceremonies of the Jewiß Law. let us firmly believe, and endeavour to practife that molt

Ε