CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

HEATS among Christians inconsistent with their profession,

and a great dishonour to Christianity, p. 2. This reflection oc-

casioned by a letter the author received, very unbecoming the

character of his friend that sent it, p. 3. The author endeavours

to find an excuse for his friend, p. 4. We are generally more

subject to passion in matters of religion, than in other things,

ibid. His friend's great respect to the Church of England,

which he thinks to be the best constituted national Church in

the world, some sort of excuse for him, p. 4, 5. We have no in-

fallible judge on earth, p. 5, 6. Nothing can excuse unreason-

able excesses of any kind, P. 6. Hard names, &c. no real pre-

judice to our cause, ibid. Mr. Wall's moderation only pretend-

ed, p. 8. The antipædobaptists hearty friends to the present

government, p. 6. They who make the greatest outcries of the

church's danger, known to be her greatest enemies, p. 9, 10.

Persecution for religion, directly contrary to our Saviour's doc-

trine and example, p. 11. Arguments from Scripture, the proper

means to convince men, p. 12. The antipædobaptists open to

instruction, ibid. Mr. Wall's History not so formidable as is

pretended, p. 13.
He is not much to be depended on, p. 14.

His real aim and design was only to establish the baptism of in-

fants; as appears by considering his pretence from Justin Mar-

tyr, p. 15. Another from St. Cyprian, p. 17. Another from the

Apostolical Constitutions, p. 20. He takes all occasions to

blacken the antipædobaptists; disguising his designs with pre-

tences to moderation, p. 21. This charge not inconsistent with

charity, p. 23. Learned men are best able to judge of matters,

P. 24. Mr. Wall endeavours to possess his readers with an

opinion of his learning, by several needless digressions: on the

Decretal Epistles, ibid. On the history of Pelagianism, p. 25.

And in this, on the lawfulness of oaths and possessing of riches,

ibid On the virginity of our Lord's mother, p. 26. On the

Socinians, and the Tritheism they charge on the Fathers, ibid.

This a subject too difficult for Mr. Wall, p. 27. His ridiculous

reflection on Mr. Stennet noted, p. 28. Another artifice to gain

reputation, by quarrelling with several of the greatest men for

learning, &c. p. 29: as archbishop Tillotson, ibid.; Bishop

Burnet, ibid.; Rigaltius, p. 30; Gregory Nazianzen, father

and son, p. 31; St. Chrysostom, ibid.; Mr. Le Clerc, p. 32.

Difference in opinion no warrant to dispense with the rules of

charity, p. 33. Moral virtues more acceptable to God, than

speculative notions, ibid. Mr. Le Clerc no Arian, Photinian,

or Socinian, p. 34. Mr. Wall also quarrels with Grotius, p. 39.

The sense of a passage in St. Gregory set right, which Mr. Wall

had misrepresented, p. 42. The sense of a canon of the Neoca-

sarean council rescued from the force Mr. Wall put upon it,

P. 43. As also the words of Zonaras and Balsamon in relation

thereto, p. 44. St. Austin and Pelagius speak of the end, not

of the subjects of baptism, p. 47. He that takes so much li-

berty with such men, will take more, in all probability, with the

antipædobaptists, ibid. Mr. Wall has not acted the part of a

faithful historian towards us, ibid. He several times, on no

ground at all, takes for granted some things, merely because

they favour his design, p. 48. And charges the antipædobap-

tists with whatever he has heard any one among them to have

believed or said, p. 48, 49.

LETTER II.

THE private opinions of a few not justly inserted in the his-

tory of the whole body, p. 51, 52. There are probably ill men
among us, as well as among others, p. 54. Some of our au-
thor's invidious insinuations, ibid. Our adversaries, instead of
railing, should endeavour to convince us from revelation, or
reason, or antiquity, p. 55. If their reflections were true, our
reputation cannot suffer much, p. 56. We are not guilty of the
hated opinions Mr. Wall loads us with, p. 57. Our separation
easy to be justified, p. 59. Mr. Wall has not sufficiently shewn
wherein the sin of schism consists, ibid. He only explains it in

general by division, separation, &c. ibid. The true notion of

schism, p. 60. It may either be lawful or unlawful, ibid. Who

are schismatics, ibid. Not they who go out from a communion

they were before joined with, but they who unnecessarily give

or take the occasion; or continue separate without just cause,

p. 61. It being lawful in some cases, and unlawful in others to

separate; it is examined what will justify a separation, p. 62.

Mr. Wall's distinction between fundamentals and non-funda-

mentals, though good in itself, is insufficient, unless he had de-

termined what are fundamentals, and what not, p. 63. A rule

to know these, ibid. Christ alone can determine what is neces-

sary; and what he has not expressly made so, is not so, p. 64.

It is useful to distinguish between things necessary to salvation,

and things only necessary to the constitution of a true Gospel

church, ibid. This distinction well grounded, because the qua-

lifications of a Christian and of a church are very different, ibid.

An error in what is essential to the constitution of a church only,

a sufficient warrant to separate from a community in such

error, p. 68. Which is also confirmed from some of Mr. Wall's

own words, ibid. Agreement in the fundamentals of religion,

not a sufficient reason against separation, as Mr. Wall would

urge it, ibid. Turned against himself, p. 70. Therefore his ar-

guments tend to nothing so much as confusion, p. 71. Though

it should be allowed, that we ought to submit all things purely

indifferent, to the determination of our superiors; this would

make but very little, if at all, in Mr. Wall's favour, p. 71, 72.

It does not follow, that persons who think they ought not

to renounce communion for smaller matters, must therefore

constantly conform in those things, and neglect what they

think is better, p. 74. If the ceremonies are not of so much

consequence, as to justify the dissenters in their separation;

neither will they justify the church in so unnecessarily in-

sisting on them, p. 75. These things, said to be indifferent in

themselves, by being the occasions of division, cease to be indif-

ferent, and become unlawful, p. 76. The dissenters are verily

persuaded, the things for which they dissent are not so indif-

ferent as they are pretended, p. 77. The Church's power of

making laws for its own government, of no service to Mr. Wall,

p. 78. Things in themselves lawful, may be so circumstantiated,

as to become unlawful, p. 79. As the case stands at present, the

dissenters are obliged to dissent from the national Church, ibid.

The sepa-

The uncharitable obstinacy of our adversaries, ibid.

ration of the antipædobaptists particularly defended, p. 80.

Mr. Wall pretends, that though they are right, they have no

ground to separate, p. 81. The antipædobaptists' notion stated,

p. 82. The time and manner of receiving baptism, so far as it

relates to our present dispute, are fundamentals, p. 82, 83.

That cannot be true baptism which differs from true baptism,

p. 83, 84. Our separation justified by the definition of a church,

in the nineteenth article of the Church of England, p. 84, 85.

We ought not to unite with persons unbaptized, p. 85, 86.

True baptism necessary to church membership, p. 86. The

words of the institution, the best rule to judge what is true

baptism, p. 87, 88. We refuse to communicate with the

Church of England, for the same reason for which she refuses

to communicate with persons unbaptized, p. 88.
Mr. Wall's

terms of union very partial and unreasonable, p. 89. We are

obliged to the Toleration for the general forbearance Mr. Wall

boasts of, p. 90. And desire to remain in the hands of her

Majesty and parliament under God, who have hitherto so kindly

secured us, ibid. A fair proposal in order to establish unity

among us, p. 91. Mr. Wall a friend to persecutions for religion,

ibid. The conclusion, p. 92.

LETTER III.

Another instance of Mr. Wall's unfairness, p. 94. The dis-

pute between the English pædobaptists and us cast under two

heads, ibid. It is strange, things so clear should be capable of

so much dispute, ibid. So far as the Scriptures are clear, our

practice is allowed to be exactly agreeable therewith, p. 95.

Therefore if we err, we are, however, on the safer side, p. 95,

96. God has revealed his will with sufficient clearness in all

material points, p. 96. And he has not left it doubtful in what

manner, or to what subjects, baptism should be administered,

ibid. A trifling remark of Mr. Wall's noted, p. 97. It is

better not to pretend to baptize persons, than not to do it as

Christ requires it should be done, p. 97, 98. The Greek word

for baptize always signifies to dip only into any manner of thing,

ibid. So Lycophron, p. 99. And Sophocles, ibid. But more

commonly it is used for dipping into liquids, ibid. So Homer,

p. 100. Metaphors include and borrow their beauties from the

thing from whence they are taken, p. 101. Pindar and his Scho-

liast, p. 103. Euripides and his Scholiasts, p. 104. Aristophanes

in many places, p. 106. The words in dispute frequently ap-

plied to the dyers' art, ibid. And they colour things by dipping

them, ibid. Several passages wherein the word alludes to the

art of dying, considered, p. 106, 107. The improper use of

words in metaphorical passages cannot be supposed to alter

their signification, p. 109. Figurative forms of speech are only

abbreviated similes, p. 110. It is no objection to say, if words

are always literally understood, authors will be made to speak

nonsense, p. III. Figurative sentences not literally true, as

they stand; but being defective, the sense must be supplied, p.

We should distinguish between the sense of a phrase, as

it includes some words not expressed; and the sense of the par-

ticular words singly considered, just as they stand, p. 113.

Words have no more than one signification, p. 114. Words are

always to be taken in their literal sense, ibid. The use of these

observations in the present dispute, p. 115. More instances

from Aristophanes, p. 116. Пúvo is to wash by dipping, p. 118.

More instances from Aristotle, p. 120. From Heraclides Pon-

ticus, p. 122. From Herodotus, p. 123. From Theocritus,

p. 123, 124. From Moschus, p. 124. From Aratus, ibid. From

Callimachus, p. 125. From Dionysius Halicarnassæus, p. 128.

From Strabo, p. 129. From Plutarch, p. 130. From Lucian,

112.

p. 131. From the emperor Marcus Antoninus, ibid. The me-

taphorical use of the word in dispute, when applied to the

mind, considered and explained, p. 133. Other instances, from

Pollux, p. 135. From Themistius, ibid. That lexicographers

and critics render the word by lavo, is no argument they ever

understood it to mean less than to dip, p. 136.

LETTER IV.

Critics constantly affirm, the proper and genuine sense of

Banrico is immergo, &c. p. 139. So Vossius, Constantine, and

Stephanus render it, ibid. A testimony from Casaubon, p. 140.

His poor evasion, ibid. Another from Grotius, p. 141. Another

from Dionysius Petavius, p. 142. It is needless to collect more,

ibid. Mr. Wall conscious, notwithstanding his pretence, that

the opinions of learned men are against him, p. 143. Whereas

Mr. Wall appeals to the Scriptures for the sense of the word,

it is shewn largely to be never there used in his sense, but the