To which I replied the next day,

I

SIR,

January 16, 1711-12.

Received yours; and find thereby, that the anfwering the main defign of my letter is intirely avoided. I perceive alfo, that his grace, as well as the reft of the learned, are not willing their proper unbiafs'd thoughts fhould be known to me and to the world fo I fhall no longer expect what his grace fo freely promised me on that head; tho' he may be affured, that the leaft hints of his defire against a publication would certainly have prevented any fuch thing; had thofe his thoughts been never fo freely communicated to me. As to the falfebood of what I faid, that his grace neglected the publick communication of my letter, intended for the convocation, that very account of the matter which you give me proves that it was not falfe: Since I meant by the neglect of that publick communication, that letter was not communicated to the convocation publickly, as it was defigned to have been, in diftinction from any communication to any other perfons. Nor am I any way relieved by faying his grace's fubfitute dropt it for private reafons; fince he could not have done fo had he had it in charge to do otherwise: nor do I know who was then his grace's fubftitule, to make my complaint to him. And if it came too late the firft day, certainly that was no reason why it might not have been communicated the next, or fome of those that followed: if his grace wishes me no ill, I hope he will please to fhew it, by stopping all reports against my integrity, till that hearing is allowed me, which I infifted on in my laft. And if his grace fhould rejoice more at my converfion than my ruin, I hope he will fhew it in reality hereafter, and put my matters into that way of fair examination, which is the only method for my

con

conviction and converfion; and not that of legal profecution, which is the only way to my ruin, either in this world or the next; fince his grace knows, that fuch a legal prosecution can have no other effect, than either to expofe me to excommunication and imprisonment, fo as to ruin me and my family in this world; or, in order to the avoiding these temporal penalties, lay me under temptations of prevarication and hypocrify; and fo can only tend to my utter ruin for ever in the world to come. I do not know that I ever defired his grace to do unfitting things on my account, unless it be unfit for a judge to hear before fentence, and for a chriftian to examine what comes recommended to him under the facred authority of Chrift and his apoftles. I am, Sir, (with humble duty to his grace.)

Your affectionate

brother and fervant,

WILL. WHISTON:

To which I never received any answer; but only the archbishop complained to my old patron, bishop More, how hard my letters were upon him: the reafon of which is very obvious.

In February 1711-12, I published, in a half sheet, The Suppofal, or A new Seheme of Government; humbly offered to publick confideration, by a lover of truth and peace; which I afterward reprinted, and owned it for mine. It is republished at the end of my Scripture Politicks; of which hereafter.

In the fame year, 1711-12, that great general, prince Eugene of Savoy, was in England: and because I did then, as I do now, interpret the end of the Hour, and Day, and Month, and Year, for the Ottoman devastations, Apoc. ix. 15. to have been put by his glorious victory over the Turks, Septem

ber

ber 1, 1697, O. S. or the fucceeding peace of Carlowitz, 1698. I printed a fhort dedication of my first imperfect Efay on the Revelation of St. John, and fixed it to the cover of a copy of that Effay, and prefented it to the prince; upon which he fent me a prefent of fifteen guineas.

The Dedication was thus ;

Illuftriffimo Principi Eugenio Sabaudienfi, Vaticiniorum Apocalypticorum Unum, Turcarum Vaftationibus finiendis deftinatum, dudum adimplenti; Alterum etiam, de Gallorum imperio fubvertendo, magna exparte, utifpes eft, mox adimpleturo, bunc Libellum fummâ quá decet reverentia, dat, dicat, confecrat.

8 id. Mart. 1711-12.

GULIELMUS WHISTON.

In April 1712, I published what had been in part discovered by Dr. Robert Cannon, and ftill farther improved by my great and learned friend Mr. Rich. Allin, a pamphlet, stiled, Athanafius convicted of Forgery. In a letter to Mr. Thirlby, of Jefus College, in Cambridge, in two fheets. But because it was afterwards twice improv'd, and reprinted; once in the three Effays, Page 196-203, and again, more compleatly, in the fecond appendix to my Argument; where was added withal, A Reply to Mr. Thirlby's fecond Defence of Athanafius; I refer the reader to this laft edition for his fatisfaction.

i

In the fame year, 1712, I published Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, Volume V.containing, The Recognitions of Clement: Or, The Travels of Peter in ten Books; done into English. As alfo two Appendixes, the one containing, Some obfervations on Dr. Clark's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity; and the other, A farther Account of the convocation's and other proceedings with relation to me. 8vo. price 5 s. But with the four Volumes, 1 l. 13 s

As

As to the Ebionite edition, and interpolations of the catholick edition of thefe Recognitions, fee the Collection of Authentick Records, Appendix VIII.

In the fame year, 1712, I published a small pamphlet, entitled, Primitive Infant-Baptifm Reviv'd: Or, An account of the doctrine and practice of the two first centuries, concerning the Baptifm of Infants, in the words of the facred and primitive writers themselves, 8vo. to which is to be added, the Memorial for fetting up charity-schools in England and Wales, dated June 10, 1610; of which already. This treatife of Infant-Baptifm was afterward reprinted, without any alterations, and added to the small edition of my four volumes.

Now the occafion of my discovery of this antient error, of the baptifin of uncatechiz'd infants, was a question put to me by Mr. Shelfwell, when I was preparing to baptize him and a fifter of his, who were good chriftians, excepting that they had never been baptiz'd before, whether I fhould not think it were better, if baptifm were deferred till after inftruction, than used before it? My answer was this; That I muft honeftly confefs, I fhould myself have thought fo but that I was no legiflator, and fo fubmitted to what I then took to be a law of Chrift.

:

Conftitut. VI. 15. "Do you also baptize your "infants, and bring them up in the nurture and ad"monition of God? For, fays he, fuffer the little "children to come unto me, and forbid them not." When Mr. Shelfwell was gone, I reflected upon what had been faid, and was diffatisfied that I had been forced to allow that, in my opinion, this law of Chrift was not fo right as it fhould be. Whereupon I immediately fet myself to examine, what the New Testament and the moft early fathers meant by the words which they used, when they fpeak of baptifm of Infants, or Little Children, I mean νήπια & παιδία, and which they elteemed not incapable

M

capable of that holy ordinance. And I foon difcovered, that they were only thofe that were capable of catechetick inftruction, but not fit for underftanding harder matters; and that none but fuch infants and little children were ever, in the first and fecond century, made partakers of baptifm. This most important difcovery I foon communicated to the world, in this paper; which both bishop Hoadly and Dr. Clarke greatly approved; but still went on in the ordinary practice, notwithstanding. I fent this paper alfo, by an intimate friend, Mr. Haines, to Sir Ifaac Newton, and defired to know his opinion: the anfwer returned was this, that they both had discovered the fame before: nay, I afterward found that Sir Ifaac Newton was fo hearty for the baptists, as well as for the Eufebians or Arians, that he fometimes fufpected these two were the two witnesses in the Revelation. See Authent. Rec. part 11. page 1075.

I now defire my readers to divert a little from my books of learning, to take my account at large of what highly concerned me and my family, with relation to Dr. Thomas Turner's great benefaction to the corporation for relief of poor widows and children of clergymen which, tho' it were not written and dedicated to the governors and benefactors of the corporation, 'till May 1731, when my family was in diftrefs; yet does it really belong to this year 1712, when I fent the letter therein contained to Dr. Turner.

Mr.