contrary, p. 144. Levit. xiv. 6. considered, ibid. That the word
does not always necessarily signify to dip all over, is the most
that can be inferred from it, p. 145. Besides, here it means to
dip all over, p. 146. Isai. xxi. 4, Ezek. xxiii. 15, Dan. iv. 33, and
v. 21, considered, p. 148, &c. Hot climates very dewy, p. 150.
The Syriac version confirms our sense, p. 151.
Ecclus. xxxi.
26; 2 Macc. i. 21; Ecclus. xxiv. 26. considered, p. 152, &c.
The purification enjoined for touching that which is dead, to be
performed by sprinkling, p. 153. Together with dipping, ibid.
The Mahometans purify in such cases by washing all over,
p. 156. Washing was the main part of the purification among the
Jews, p. 157. For which reason the Son of Sirach uses this
word to intend the whole ceremony, p. 158. Luke xi. 38. con-
sidered, p. 160. Mr. Wall pretends the Jews always washed
their hands, by having water poured on them, p. 161. Which
is false, p. 163. The priests washed their hands and feet by
dipping them, p. 164. Our Lord washed his disciples' feet so
likewise, ibid. The authority of the rabbins not to be de-
pended on, p. 166. Dr. Pococke allows, the Jews were obliged
sometimes to wash by dipping, p. 167. And from thence ac-
counts for the use of the word Banтiçeσbai, Mark vii. 4. p. 168.
Mr. Wall's next instance, which is Mark vii. 4. considered, p.
169. They that came from the market did wash by dipping,
p. 172. Sects among the Jews who washed themselves fre-
quently, p. 173. The words may refer to the things brought
from the market, p. 177. Heb. ix. 10. and Matt. xxvi. 83. con-
sidered, p. 179, &c. The sacramental washing being expressed
by words which signify any kind of washing, does not prove it
may therefore be administered by any kind of washing,
p. 182, 183. Words, like our ideas, have their genera
and spe-
cies, p. 184. Words of a more particular sense should explain
the more general, and not the contrary, p. 185.
p. 201.
have lost the true reading in the last, ibid. Metaphorical pas-
sages make for, not against my opinion, p. 193. Languages
do not exactly answer to one another, p. 195. If the word
Banτic were otherwise ever so ambiguous, yet as it relates to
baptism, it is sufficiently determined only and necessarily to
mean to dip, p. 197. By the doctrine and practice of St. John,
p. 198. Of the holy apostles, ibid. Of the succeeding church
for many centuries, which urged a trine immersion,
Learned men in general allow this mode of baptism, p. 203.
Mr. Wall pretends, though the ancients did generally baptize
by immersion, they likewise used affusion, or the like, p. 206.
But this was not allowed in common cases, ibid. Aspersion, how
at first admitted, p. 207. It is unreasonable to argue, that the
general sense of a law is the same with the exceptions that are
made to it, p. 209. The ancient church of the first centuries
did not practise affusion, &c. p. 212. St. Cyprian's plea for
aspersion very trifling, p. 213. All who were baptized in the
apostles' times were baptized by immersion, p. 216. The clini-
cal affusions do not appear to have been introduced till about
two hundred and fifty years after Christ, p. 218. At which time,
they very much doubted of their validity, p. 220. By the first
patrons granted to be presumptive, p. 222. All allow immersion
was insisted on anciently as the only regular way, in all common
cases at least, p. 226. A humble remark on the bishop of Sa-
lisbury's plea for changing the manner of administering the sa-
crament here in England, p. 228. The clergy pretend they
would gladly revive the ancient practice, but do not take the
proper methods; and in reality obstruct its being revived,
p.229. βάπτω and βαπτίζω synonymous, p.230.
present may go far to open people's eyes yet much more in
their favour, ibid. It is pity some friendly measures are not
taken to compose the difference, which is not so impracticable
as some fancy, ibid. Mr. Wall's attempt, though the best in its
kind, falls very short of answering the design of it, p. 235.
His scheme, ibid. He first allows it cannot be made appear
from Scripture, that infants are to be baptized, ibid. And there-
fore recurs to these as the only expedients: 1. To the practice
of the Jewish church: 2. To the practice of the ancient Chris-
tians, p. 236. Some reflections which overturn all he says as
to his main conclusion, though he should prove these two points
ever so solidly, p. 237. From his concession, that it cannot be
proved from Scripture, it unavoidably follows, that it is no in-
stitution of Christ, ibid. And to suppose it may be included
in some of the more general expressions is only to beg the thing
in dispute, p. 240. Unless he can shew us infant-baptism is so
much as mentioned in Scripture, we shall not believe it is in-
stituted there, ibid. Our author makes the Scriptures the rule
of language; which he therefore ought with much more reason
to make the only rule of his faith and practice, p. 241, 242.
The baptism of infants is unlawful if Christ has not instituted
it, ibid. True protestants should adhere to the Scripture, as
the only infallible guide in all religious controversies, p. 243.
They who do otherwise, seem to be too near the church of
Rome, as to the article of tradition at least, which is an inlet to
all the rest, p. 244. Our adversaries act very inconsistently in
rejecting tradition, in their disputes with the Romanists, while
they recur to it as their main refuge in the present dispute with
us, ibid. That infant-baptism ought not to be practised, is
proved from our author's principles, compared with the articles
of the church, ibid. It gives the Romanists a handle to weaken
the reformation with too much advantage, p. 246. The articles
of the church directly against traditions, ibid. The Scrip-
tures' silence as good an argument against pædobaptism as can
be desired, p. 248. We find a strong tendency in our minds to
depend upon the Scriptures only, ibid. We are obliged by any
sort of law, &c. only to the particulars the said law expresses,
p. 249. This illustrated by instances, and by an undoubted
maxim from Tertullian, p. 250. Applied also to the present
dispute, and illustrated by more instances, p. 251. Some build
the ecclesiastical hierarchy mainly on that very foundation on
which the baptizing of infants, is opposed, 252, 253. Mr. Wall
sometimes argues in the same manner as the baptists do against
pædobaptism, p. 253. The objection, that Christ nowhere forbids
us to baptize infants, answered, p. 254. We are forbid to teach
the traditions of men for commandments of God, p. 255. The
pædobaptists' argument enervated by Tertullian, p. 256. Though
the Scripture's silence may sometimes, it does not always leave
it so much as lawful to do what it does not mention, p. 257.
LETTER VII.
That the Scripture does not leave infant-baptism so undeter-
mined as some would pretend, is largely shewn from Matt.
xxviii. 19, p. 261. All laws equally oblige in all particular
mentioned in them, p. 262. This applied to our present dis-
pute, p. 263. The commission necessarily obliges to teach all
it intends should be baptized, ibid. Therefore infants cannot
be included in that commission, ibid. The commission also
requires, that all of whom it speaks should be first taught, and
afterwards baptized, p. 266. The ridiculous objection of such
as say, infants also are to be taught, answered, p. 269, 270.
Some would evade its force, by confessing, this commission
relates particularly to the adult, which is directly giving up the
argument, p. 270. What the pædobaptists urge from the words
all nations, answered, p. 271. It is not said all of all nations,
ibid. Illustrated by a parallel instance from Matt. iii. 5, 6.
p. 272. Mr. Dorrington censured, p. 273. It is proved, the com-
mission most directly excludes infants, p. 274.
What the pa-
dobaptists urge concerning the Greek word μabŋrevoare an-
swered, ibid. Dr. Hammond censured for so grossly contra-
dicting himself in this point, p. 275. Men of the greatest
learning disown the criticism of the pædobaptists, p. 276. A pas-
sage from the bishop of Sarum, ibid. Another from Dr. Whitby,
p. 277. Madŋteve is constantly used to signify nothing less
than to teach, &c. p. 278. The sense of the word proved from
its etymology, p. 279. The primitive, and all its derivatives,
include teaching, &c. ibid. No room for an antiphrasis, which
is now exploded by the best grammarians, p. 280. The pretence
from the termination, that words in -euw are to be interpreted by
sum in Latin, is groundless, p. 281. Plutarch uses the word to
signify to teach, p. 283. Another instance from St. Ignatius, ibid.
WALL, VOL. III.
b
LETTER IX.
His pre-
Mr. Wall's attempt founded on mistake, p. 343.
tences from the Jews examined; which he has collected from
the learned men who best understood their writings, ibid. Their
authority of no weight; the reasons they go upon being too
weak, p. 344. It is without sufficient ground that our author
asserts, the Jews make it plain they baptized their proselytes
before Christ's time, ibid. His authorities too late, p. 345. Great
alterations introduced in a short time, p. 346. The passages
produced by Mr. Wall do not so much as intimate that the Jews
baptized proselytes in our Saviour's time, p. 347. There is no
necessity to understand the words in Mr. Wall's sense, ibid.
The Jews used to baptize for the pollution contracted in cir-
cumcision; which may be the baptism spoken of in the Talmud,
p. 347, 348. Some of the rabbins plainly shew us they neither
knew nor allowed of any initiatory baptism, ibid. They ridicule
our baptism as a fanciful ceremony, as appears from the ancient
Nizzachon, which fixes the rise of the practice in Christ, and
mentions it as an initiation peculiar to Christians; and opposes
to it the Jewish circumcision only, p. 349. It appears farther
from Rab. Isaac, p. 351. So that the Jewish writings, if any
thing, prove contrary to our author's opinion, p. 352. The au-
thority of the rabbius very insignificant, and never to be de-
pended on, p. 353. Their writings in general stuffed with very
foolish, romantic tales, p. 354. Their fabulous and ridiculous
way of accounting for Christ's power of miracles, from Toldoth
Jeschu, ibid. More instances of their ridiculous whimsies from
the Talmud, p. 358. Their foolish misapplication of Scripture,
P. 359. Their impious representations of God, p. 361. A fa-
bulous account of the origin of Rome, p. 362 Another concern-
ing R. Eliezer, in confirmation of their traditions, p. 363. The
Pirké of Eliezer, p. 364. Another reason why the rabbins are
not to be relied on is, that they profess to follow their doctors
in all they assert, though ever so absurd, ibid. They prefer
their Talmud and traditions before the Scriptures themselves,
p. 365. The character of the rabbins, ibid. Their excessive
pride, p. 366. Their way of interpreting the Scriptures, ibid.
The Sanhedrim, though made up of their best men, consisted only
|