Here might have ended the investigation of Dr. Waterland's learned labours, had not some other of his productions lately come to light, which have been deemed of sufficient importance to admit them into this first entire collection of his writings. The public might reasonably have been dissatisfied if any undoubted manuscripts of the author, not undeserving of his high reputation, had been suffered to remain unnoticed, or known only to those few who might have access to the public or private archives in which they are deposited. Some brief account of these remains, therefore, to be given.

The first to be noticed are Two Letters on LayBaptism.

In the Biographia Britannica, it is stated, that in the year 1716, there passed several letters between Jackson and Whiston upon the subject of InfantBaptism, which Jackson defended against Whiston, as he did also the lawfulness and validity of LayBaptism to another friend and correspondent. "But" (it is added)" whether in the last letter he "had an eye, or no, to Dr. Waterland, does not

66

appear, who once denied the validity of Lay-Bap"tism; however, he afterwards changed his opinion." This is said to have been "communicated by Dr. "Nicholls, Rector of St. Giles, Cripplegate." The communication, however, will hardly obtain credit, when compared with the evidence of these two letters by Dr. Waterland now under consideration.

The first letter was found in the collection of Archbishop Wake's Manuscripts, deposited in the "Art. Jackson. Vol. vii. Supplement, p. 107. note B.

library at Christ Church, Oxford. It is inscribed to the Reverend Mr. P. Rector of L. dated M. C. (Magdalene College) October 29, 1713, and subscribed D. W. It can now only be conjectured who was this Mr. P. Rector of L. Probably it was Mr. Pyle, then Rector of Lynn, in Norfolk. The letter was evidently written for the purpose of removing certain doubts entertained by Mr. P. in consequence of some correspondence or conversation between him and a Mr. Kelsall, in which the latter had maintained Dr. Bingham's opinion on the subject, against that of Mr. Laurence, the wellknown author of Lay-Baptism invalid. In the introductory part of the letter, Dr. W. professes himself to have been, till lately, of Dr. Bingham's opinion, but to have changed that opinion upon further deliberation; a statement, the very reverse of that brought forward in the Biographia Britannica; unless we are to suppose, that, even after these letters were written, he abandoned his latter judgment and returned to the former; than which nothing can be more improbable. The letter itself contains a brief summary of the main arguments on which the invalidity of Lay-Baptism is grounded; and shews in a very concise, but distinct and luminous manner, the proofs to that effect, from Scripture, antiquity, and reason. To this general view of the subject the first letter is confined, the writer professing not to enter into any further detail, but rather to be desirous of information from Mr. Kelsall himself, of whose learning and ability he speaks in terms of high respect.

Together with this letter, (which is transcribed

in a small duodecimo book, and written in a remarkably neat and distinct hand, not much unlike to that of Waterland,) there is also a transcript, in the same hand-writing, of Mr. Kelsall's letter, addressed to the same Mr. P. in consequence (as it appears) of Mr. P.'s having sent Dr. Waterland's letter for his 'consideration. It is subscribed, E. Kelsall, and dated, Boston May 12, 1714. The same name occurs in Cooke's Preacher's Assistant, as the author of two Sermons in the years 1710 and 1712; and also among the Cambridge Graduates, is found Edward Kelsall, St. John's, A. B. 1691, A. M. 1695. There can be little doubt that this was the author of the letter; and that he was a man whose opinion Dr. Waterland thought might have considerable weight. His letter, indeed, shews great learning, research, and ability; vindicating his former judgment on the validity of Lay-Baptism, and elaborately combating the arguments against it; though at the same time expressive of great personal respect for Dr. Waterland. At considerable length, he goes through the whole question, examines it in all its bearings, and contests with much strength, not without some asperity also, the conclusions formed, on the other side, by Mr. Laurence and Dr. Brett. He takes the liberty, however, of inverting the order of his opponent's arguments, by examining first, what reason has to allege from the consequences which, he conceives, must follow from admitting the invalidity of Lay-Baptism; and then, what may be inferred from the authorities of Scripture and antiquity; thus, in some measure, prejudging the main question, or, at least, prepossessing the mind of the reader somewhat

unfairly in favour of his own hypothesis. Great acuteness and polemical skill are displayed throughout the letter; which it has been thought proper to insert together with Dr. Waterland's, not only for its intrinsic worth, but that the reader may be better able to appreciate the value of Dr. Waterland's reply.

The manuscript from which Dr. Waterland's second letter is now printed, was not found together with the former in the library at Christ Church; but is a transcript which had been in the possession of Mr. Charles Wheatly, who bequeathed it, among other manuscripts, to St. John's College, Oxford, in the archives of which library it is deposited. On the manuscript Mr. Wheatly has written a memorandum, stating it to be "a copy transcribed by "the late Mr. Austin Bryant, from one which Mr.

66

Wheatly had from the Doctor himself, and after"wards lent to Mr. Bryan by the Doctor's order." It has neither date nor subscription: but in the margin is this note;-"Mr. Bryan died in April "1726: the letter was wrote probably before the

66

year 1720." The probability, indeed, seems to be that it was written considerably before that time. Waterland's first letter is dated, October 1713; Mr. Kelsall's, May 1714: and it seems not likely that Waterland, who had already so thoroughly considered the subject, should have delayed his reply much beyond that same year; although he apologizes, in the latter part of it, for the long delay occasioned by a pressure of other business. But this is

t The editor of Plutarch's Lives.

comparatively unimportant. The authenticity of this, as well as of the other letters, is unquestionable; and, though not intended for the public eye, it is, perhaps, scarcely inferior to any of the author's other writings. Towards the conclusion, he says, "I "might, no doubt, have been more exact in many "things, had I more leisure, or could I bear the "trouble of transcribing. But since these papers "are designed only for private use, I am content to "let them pass. You may please to communicate "them to your learned friend, whom I have a great "respect and value for."

From these circumstances it appears, that Dr. Waterland was induced to take up the subject, rather for the satisfaction of his friend Mr. P. (to whom the letter is evidently addressed, though in this copy of it the superscription is wanting,) than from a desire of controversy with Mr. Kelsall: and probably, Mr. Kelsall had the same motive, in the pains he took to support his own opinion. Perhaps, too, they both considered the subject as already nearly exhausted, by those who had publicly engaged in it; and were mutually unwilling to rekindle the controversy, or to come before the world as opponents to each other. There seems, however, to be no reason, why these papers should any longer be kept from the public eye. They reflect great credit on both parties. They are the result, on each side, of much reading and reflection, upon a point certainly of considerable interest; and to those who may be desirous of forming a correct judgment upon the question, without much labour, they present, within a moderate compass, a complete statement of the main arguments on which