MEMOIRS OF THE REV. DR. JOHN GALE. DR. JOHN GALE was born in London, May 26th, 1680. His father spared neither pains nor expense in his education, but after he had made great progress in learning in his own country, sent him over to Leyden to finish what he had so happily begun. He was so industrious and so successful, that in the small space of two years he conquered all the difficulties of his favourite study, and received, with universal applause, when little more than nineteen years old, the academical degrees of Master of Arts, and Doctor in Philosophy. Upon this occasion his Professor wrote to his father as follows. "It has happened to no one that I know of, to gain such a knowledge of things which are to be traced out by natural reason, within the space of fifteen months and no more, which is all the time your son has applied himself to the study of Philosophy, and that before the expiration of the nineteenth year of his age, as to be judged worthy to be adorned with the highest honours in a solemn ceremony. God grant he may go on in the same pace he has begun, and continue the same assiduity and diligence to the end, that so he may become a most fit instrument to advance the glory of the name of the Lord, the furthering of his own salvation, and the public good of his neighbours." (Signed) Wolferdus Senguerdius. Upon this occasion, when he published his Thesis, De ente ejusque conceptu, dedicated to his father and his two uncles, Sir John and Sir Joseph Wolf,the celebrated Adrian Reland subjoined a testimony of his worth, in a Latin panegyric which ends thus, alluding to the Cartesians whom he had always opposed. Vince tuos hostes, & murus aheneus esto, At the same time, July 3, 1699, a most eloquent Latin oration was pronounced by the learned Volder, Professor of Philosophy and Mathematics, and published after his death by the celebrated Professor Boerhaave, wherein he says;-"If that be new which has not been done for many years, which no one of the Professors hath seen in his time, then it is new to declare a Doctor of Philosophy from this place, though, if you consider the cer emonies with which this solemnity is performed, it appears ancient. But I wish the noble and very laudable design of this candidate in prosecuting his studies were a thing customary, who, after he had applied his mind to them, thought it his business, not according to the new, but very bad method, to rest satisfied with a slight and superficial knowledge of the liberal arts, but to look into their inmost recesses, and to acquaint himself with what lay most concealed in those of them which he conversed with. Wherefore, in the first place, with great labour he gained the knowledge of the tongues, that he might afterwards with more ease and advantage apply himself to the sciences themselves. For this purpose, he not only carefully studied the Latin tongue, but what in this age is very rare and unusual, the Greek and Hebrew. I say nothing of the Latin, in which he has often spoke publicly at London, that famous city; for you have heard with what elegance, propriety, and force of persuasion,.he commendBut ed the study of wisdom. I can by no means omit to observe, that he so applied himself to the Greek language, as not only to understand it, but to be able to declaim in it publicly. To these he added likewise the Hebrew, thinking the knowledge of the Greek insufficient without this, and that he must depend upon the credit of others for the interpretation of the sacred writings. Furnished with these helps, he entered upon the study of Philosophy, being induced to it partly by the pleasure which arises from inquiries into things obscure, and partly by the advan tage which those studies afford both in life and the other sciences, and partly, likewise, as thinking it the best method to cultivate his mind, and dispose it more readily and clearly to dis- 66 Upon his return to his native country, (says Dr. Campbell,) he perfected his skill in the Oriental languages, assiduously studied the sacred Scriptures in their originals, with the most celebrated commentaries, and the most eminent amongst the fathers, by which he acquired a thorough acquaintance with, and a due regard for them, without imbibing an implicit faith in, or a dangerous reliance on, the authority of antiquity. All this time, his worth was in a great measure hid; and there were but very few that knew his real merit. It was not, however, many years before an occasion offered which called his qualifications into a very high much more conspicuous point of view. The Rev. Mr. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham in Kent, wrote a celebrated treatise, which he intitled, The History of Infant Baptism; and for this he not only received, long after, the honour of a Doctor's degree from the University of Oxford, but also the thanks of the convocation then assembled. A friend of Dr. Gale's, a member of the Church of England, and very zealous for the doctrines of the church, con sidering the reputation of this book, wrote the Doctor a warm letter thereupon, as if it had been absolutely impossible to read the arguments contained therein, without being convinced. It fell out, however, otherwise with Dr.Gale; he was not only proof against both book and letter, but resolved to answer them, purely to satisfy his correspondent, that reason might appear in defence of that cause which he thought so utterly overthrown by this performance. These letters, though written in 1705 and 1706, were not published until 1711, and then, at the very earnest desire of some persons of distinguished abilities, who thought it an injury to the public that they should remain longer in obscurity. Thus, by their own merit, they came abroad into the world, and made their author generally known and respected, in a very short space, even by those who did not embrace his sentiments. Indeed, there was so much good sense, learning, and moderation, in his discourses, that it was impossible they could meet with any other than a favourable reception." Biographia Britannica, Vol. III. P. 2079. The same excellent biographer, who is one of the most able writere this country has produced, and whose opinion concerning Dr. Gale's performance is entitled to the greater regard on account of his being a zealous member of the established church, which however, did not prevent him from rendering justice to the merits of eminent men of other denominations, has given us the following compendium of this work. "The best way of making the value of this work known within the narrow compass of a note, will be, by entering into a succinct analysis of his learned performance, in which he has shown himself equally conversant with books and men, and with polite literature, as well as ecclesiastical writers. In the first letter. he observes, that Mr. Wall's History is not so formidable as is pretended, though the best defence of Infant Baptism which he had seen, and that for those reasons on which Mr. Wall himself recommends it in his preface. He then tells us, that Mr. Wall is not much to be depended on, and that his real aim and design was only to establish the baptism of infants, and that he takes all occasions to blacken the Anti Pædobaptists, disguising his designs with pretences to moderation. That Mr. Wall endeavours to possess his readers with an opinion of his penetration, by several needless digressions, and to gain reputation by quarrelling with several of the greatest men for learning, &c. as particularly Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Burnet, Rigaltius, Gregory Nazianzen, both father and son; St. Chrysostom, Monsieur le Clerc, and Grotius. That he has not acted the part of a faithful historian towards the Anti-Pædobaptists, but several times, on no ground at all, takes for granted some things, merely because they favour his design, and charges the Anti-Pædobaptists with whatever he had heard any one among them to have believed or said. In the second letter, Dr. Gale endeavours to justify his brethren from the charge of schism; and observes, that in order to an union it would be requisite, and I think (says he) none can except against it, that some fit persons were chosen on both sides, to examine the Scriptures impartially, and the fathers of the three first centuries, who followed their great Master through sufferings, and whose writings are undoubtedly by far the best commentary on the sacred books; and, with these helps, to collect from the Word of God the true doctrine : mean to dip by the doctrine and practice of St. John amongst the aposties, and of the succeeding church for many centuries, which urged a trine immersion. He affirms likewise, that the ancient church of the three first centuries did not practise affusion; that all who baptized in the times of the apostles were baptized by immersion; that clinical affusions do not appear to have been introduced till about two hondred and fifty years after Christ, at which time their validity was much doubted; and that all allow immersion to have been insisted on anciently, as the only regular way in all common cases. In the sixth letter, he proceeds to the other chief article in dispute, between the Anti-Pædobaptists and their antagonists, relating to the persons who are the true subjects of baptism, whether adult persons alone, or infants also. He observes, that Mr. Wall's attempt, though the best in its kind, falls very short of answering the design of it; and that this writer allows it cannot be made to appear from scripture, that infants are to be baptized, and therefore recurs to these as the only expedients. 1. To the practice of the Jewish Church. 2. To the practice of the ancient Christians Dr. Gale remarks upon this, that from Mr. Wall's concession that it cannot be proved from Scripture, it unavoidably follows, that it is no institution of Christ, and that to suppose it may be included in some of the more general expressions, is only to beg the point in dispute: and that unless Mr. Wall can show that Infant Baptism is so much as mentioned in Scripture, the Anti-Pædobaptists will not believe it instituted there. He observes, likewise, that the Baptism of Infants is unlawful, if Christ has not instituted it; that true Protestants should adhere to the Scripture, as the only infal lible guide in all religious controversies; and that the silence of the Scripture is a good argument against Infant Baptism. In the seventh letter he shows, from Matt. xxviii. 19, that the Scripture does not leave Infant Baptism so undetermined as some would pretend, and that the commission necessarily obliges to teach all who it intends should be baptized; and that therefore infants cannot be included in that commission : and he asserts that the verb μαθητεύειν is constantly used to signify nothing less than to teach. In the eighth letter he remarks, that the substantive μaburns is only said of such as are at least capable of being taught, and that the most judicious bave always agreed, that the word in the commission particularly signifies to teach and instruct; and that this appears evidently to be the true sense of the place, from the authority of the Scriptures themselves, from the practice of the apostles, and from parallel places. The sum The sum of the Doctor's reasoning on this head is this, that the commission obliges to teach all that are to be baptized, and therefore that the Scriptures are not so silent concerning the baptizing of infants as the Pædobaptists would persuade us; so that if Mr. Wall should prove that the Jews and Christians did baptize their children, the Anti-Pædobaptists have still reason enough not to admit the practice. In the ninth letter he observes, that Mr. Wall's assertions, that the Jews did initiate their Proselytes, and their Infants by Baptism, and that the apostles and Primitive Church baptized the lufants of believing parents, are mistakes, and that the arguments brought to prove these two points, are no better. Dr. Gale examines first Mr. Wall's pretences from the Jews in this and the following letters, in which he endeavours to show, from many considerations, that the arguments of the Pædobaptists do not make it appear to have been the custom of the Jews, in our Saviour's time, to baptize Proselytes and their children, and urges several arguments to evince the contrary. He remarks likewise, that even supposing the fact could be demonstrated, it is no rule in the administration of a Christian sacrament, as being only the tradition of their elders, and not grounded on Scripture, or derived from Moses. In the elev enth letter, Dr. Gale proceeds to the other kind of evidence produced by Mr. Wall, viz. the authority of the Primitive Fathers, which, the Doctor observes, ought to be valued more than Monsieur Daillé and some others suppose. It is an ill return (says he) for the great lessons and examples of piety they have given us, and for their having been so instrumental in transmitting to us the knowledge of our most holy religion. And there is yet a greater evil attends this method; for all the abuses and affronts put upon the Fathers of the first centuries, do in the end reflect on Christianity itself which those great men have handed down, and which therefore must needs be, in some degree, of but doubtful authority, if it depends upon sufficient testimony. It would not be difficult to defend the writings of the Fathers from the reproaches cast on them by these men, and by Daillé, their oracle, notwithstanding he has taken such pains in the matter, and pushed it with all the vigour he could. But it is a nice subject, and much too copious to be treated here at large. I shall therefore only say, that in many cases the rejecting the authority of the Fathers is a very wild extreme, which men are driven to, only because they have nothing better to say for |