with no more than the other: By a church-ordinance, they either mean an ordinance of the church's appointing; or elfe one that is performed by perfons when in a church ftate. The former, I prefume, they do not mean, because the Lord's-Supper is not in that fense a church-ordinance: And if they mean in the latter fenfe, that baptifin is not a church-ordinance, then certainly it ought to be performed before they are in a church state; which is the thing pleaded for. When they talk of baptism's not being effential to falvation, who fays it is but will this tolerate the abuse, neglect, or omiffion of it? Is any thing relating to divine worship effential to falvation? but what, muft it all be laid afide because it is not? is not this an idle way of talking?

5. It is a rejecting the pattern which Chrift has given us, and a trampling upon his legislative power; is this doing all things according to his direction, when we step over the first thing, after believing, that is enjoined us? Is not this making too free with his legislative power, to alter his rules at pleasure? and what else is it, but an attempt to joftle Chrift out of his throne? It is no other than an imputation of weaknefs to him, as if he did not know what was best for his churches to obferve; and of carelessness, as if he was unconcerned whether they regarded his will or no. Let fuch remember the cafe of Nadab and Abibu. In matters of worship, God takes notice of thofe things that feem but fmall, and will contend with his people upon that account. A power to difpenfe with Chrift's ordinances, was never given to any men, or fet of men or churches. upon earth. An ordinance of Chrift does not depend upon fo precarious a foundation, as perfons having, or not having light into it: If they have not, they must make use of proper means, and wait till God gives them it.

6. We are commanded to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly; not only from perfons of an immoral converfation, but alfo from those who are corrupt in doctrine, or in the adminiftration of ordinances; if this is not a diforderly walking, to live in the abufe, or neglect and omiffion of a gofpel ordinance, I know not what is: We are not to fuffer fin upon a brother, but reprove him for it; bear our teftimony against it, left we be partakers of his guilt; and if we are to withdraw from fuch diforderly perfons, then we ought not to receive them.

7. This practice makes our feparation from the Established church, look more like a piece of obftinacy, than a cafe of confcience: What, fhall we boggle at reading the Common-prayer-book, wearing the furplice, kneeling at the Lord's fupper, &c. and can at once drop an ordinance of Chrift? if this is not ftraining at gnats, and swallowing of camels, I must confefs myself mistaken.

To all this I might have added alfo, that it is contrary to the constant and univerfal practice of the churches of Chrift, in all ages of the world. To receive

an

an unbaptized perfon into communion, was never once attempted among all the corruptions of the church of Rome: This principle of receiving only baptized perfons into communion, was maintained by the authors of the glorious Reformation from Popery, and those who fucceeded them. As for the prefent practice of our Prefbyterians and Independents, they proceed not upon the fame foot as our Semi-Quakers do. They judge our baptifm to be valid, and their own too; and therefore promifcuously receive perfons; but, according to their own principles, will not receive one that is unbaptized. And could we look upon their baptifm valid too, what we call mixed communion would wholly ceafe, and confequently the controversy about it be entirely at an end; therefore the Pref byterians and Independents do not maintain a free and mixt communion in the fame fenfe, and upon the fame foundation, as fome of our perfuafion do, which thofe perfons would do well to confider.

It may be thought neceffary by fome, that before I conclude, I fhould make an apology for taking notice of fuch a trifling pamphlet as this is, which I have been confidering. Had it not been for the importunity of fome of my friends, as well as the vain ovations, and filly triumphs, which thofe of a different perfuafion from us are ready to make upon every thing that comes out this way, however weak it be, I fhould never have given myself the trouble of writing, nor others of reading hereof. If it should be asked, why I have been so large in confidering feveral things herein, to which a fhorter reply would have been sufficient? I anfwer, It is not because I thought the author deserved it, but having obferved that the arguments and exceptions which he has licked. up from others, have been, and ftill are, received by perfons of far fuperior judgment and learning to himself, and who are better verfed in this controversy than he appears to be; it is upon that account, as well as to do juftice to the truth I have been defending, I have taken this method. But if any should think me blame-worthy, in taking notice of fome things herein, which do not carry in them the appearance of an argument, I perfuade myself they will easily forgive me, when they confider how ready fome captious perfons would have been to fay, I had paffed over fome of his material objections. However, without much concerning myself what any one fhall fay of this performance, I commit it to the bleffing of God, and the confideration of every impartial. reader.

A DEFENCE

IMMERSION, PLUNGING, OR DIPPING IN WATER, &c.

AGAINST

Mr MATTHIAS MAURICE'S Reply, called,

Plunging into Water no Scriptural Mode of Baptizing, &c.

CHA P. I.

Some Remarks on Mr M's entrance to his Work

HAVING lately attempted to vindicate the ancient mode of baptizing, by immerfion, plunging, or dipping into water, against the exceptions of an anonymous pamphlet, intitled, The manner of baptizing with water, cleared up from the word of God and right reason, &c. The author, who appears to be Mr Matthias Maurice of Rowell in Northamptonshire, has thought fit to reply. He feems angry at the treatment he has met with; but if he thought that his name would have commanded greater respect, why did not he put it to his

book?

book and why did he refufe to give fatisfaction to his friends when inquired of about the author of it? Would he be treated as a gentleman, a fcholar, or a christian? he ought to have wrote as fuch. Who is the aggreffor? who gave the first provocation? If I have any where exceeded the bounds of christianity, or humanity, I would readily acknowledge it upon the first conviction; but who indeed" can touch pitch, without being defiled with it?" Three or four pages are filled up with a whining, infinuating harangue, upon the nature of controverfies, and the difagreeable temper and fpirit with which they are frequently managed; defigning hereby to wipe himself clean, whilft he is cafting reproach upon others. I would not be an advocate for burlesk and banter in religious controverfies; but if he would have them banished from thence, why does he make use of them, even in this his performance, which begins with fuch loud exclamations against them. As for inftance, how does he pun upon prefumptive proofs, p. 13. and in p. 27. fpeaking of our baptizing in holes or cifterns, as he is pleased to call them, "Thus, fays he, you have forfook the fcriptural way of baptizing with water, and have hewn out unto yourselves "cifterns," referring to Jer. ii. 13. befides the frequent fneers with which his book abounds. Now if burlesk and banter, in general, ought to be laid aside, much more punning and bantering with the words of fcripture, which are facred and awful. Is this the man that directs others to "write in the fear of God, having the awful Judge, and the approaching judgment in view;" and yet takes fuch a liberty as this? He fays, p. 7. " I shall not entertain the reader "with any remarks upon his performance, as it is ludicrous, virulent and defaming" Which, itself is a manifeft defamation, as the reader cannot but obferve; it being afferted without attempting to give one fingle inftance wherein it appears to be fo. With what face can he call it ludicrous; when he himself, in the debate, has been fo wretchedly guilty that way? when he talks, p. 9. of "Chrift's being under water ftill: and in p. 10. of John's thrusting the people "into thorns and briars, when he baptized in the wildernefs;" as also his concluding from Philip and the Eunuch's coming up out of the water, p. 19. "that neither of them was drowned there;" with other fuch like rambling ftuff, which he might have been afhamed to publish to the world. Moreover, what defamation has he been guilty of, in reprefenting it, as the judgment of "fome of us" to baptize naked?" p. 22. And in the words of a fervant of Chrift, as he calls him, p. 44. tells the world that we "baptize perfons in thin

and tranfparent garments;" which, in other cafes, would be accounted down right lying Nay even in this his laft performance, p. 44. he has the affurance to infinuate, as if we ourselves thought plunging to be immodeft, because we put lead at the bottom of our plunging garments; why could not he as well

have argued from our making use of clothes themselves? it is ftrange that a carefulness to prevent every thing that looks like immodefty, fhould be improved as an evidence of it: None but a man that is ill-natured and virulent, would ever be guilty of fuch an infinuation.

What his friends, at Rowell, may think of his performances, I cannot tell; but I can affure him, that thofe of his perfuafion at London think very meanly of them; and, as the most effectual way to fecure the honour of their caufe, which is endangered by fuch kind of writing as his, fay, "he is a weak man that has "engaged in the controverfy;" though, perhaps, fome of his admirers may think that he is one of the mighty men of Ifrael, who, like another Samfon, has fmote us hip and thigh; but if I fhould fay, that it is with much fuch an inftrument as he once ufed, I know that I fhould be very gravely and feverely reprimanded for it, my grace and good manners called in question, and perhaps be pelted into the bargain, with an old mufty proverb or fentence, either in Greek or Latin; but I will forbear, and proceed to the confideration of his work, as he calls it.

His first attack, p. 8. is upon a small fentence of Latin, made use of to express the naufeous and fulfom repetition, of threadbare arguments in this controverfy, to which he has thought fit, to give no lefs than three feveral anfwers.

1. He fays the Latin is falfe, because of an erratum of co&tum for coƐta; which had I obferved before the laft half fheet had been worked off, should have been inferted among the errata; whereby he would have been prevented making this learned remark; though had it not fallen under my notice, before he pointed it to me, he should have had the honour of this great difcovery. He does well indeed to excufe his making fuch low observations, as being beneath the vast defigns he has in view. I might as well take notice of his Greek proverb, p. 25. where come, is put for me, and charge it with being falfe Greek, though I fhould rather chufe to afcribe it to the fault of the printer, than the inadvertancy of the writer. However, he does well to let his readers know that he can write Greek; which they could not have come at the knowledge of, by his former performance. But why does not he give a version of his Latin and Greek scraps, especially seeing he writes for the benefit of the Lord's people, the Godly, and poor men and women, that cannot look into Dictionaries, and confult Lexicons ; befides, all the wit therein will be loft to them, as well as others be left unacquainted with his happy genius for, and skill in tranflating.

2. He fays, "the application of this fentence is falfe:" But how does it appear? why, because at Rowell he and his people are very moderate in the affair of baptifin, they feldom difcourfe of it; when every body knows, that has read my book, that the paragraph referred to, regards not the private converfation of

perfons