If Tertullian's reasoning here should not hold as to things in their own nature indifferent; he must however be blind indeed that does not see how strongly it holds in all religious matters, which it may be pretended we ought, or ought not to do. In short, all that can be made of their argument is, that as they have nothing for their practice in the Scriptures, so there is nothing against it; as much as to say, We have no reason to oppose the practice, and they have no reason to plead for it. But whether we have reason to oppose them, let all men judge; if they have no reason to urge for their practice, their cause is bad enough; for, as Mr. Locke somewhere says, 'he that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his ' own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker.'

6

It would be thought extravagant in any man to pretend, such a clod in a certain field is the selfsame piece of earth which about six thousand years ago was Adam's body, because the Scripture does not say the contrary. As wild as this appears to be, it is however as just as the pædobaptist's plea; and must be allowed so, for it is grounded on the same reason, viz. that the Scripture nowhere says the contrary.

2. In the next place, you may please to observe, that though in some cases the Scripture's silence may leave the thing indifferent, to the freedom or opinion of every man; yet it is far from being so always.

licere, quia Scriptura non jubeat. Quid faciet disciplina? Utrumque recipiet, quasi neutrum prohibitum sit? An utrumque rejiciet, quasi neutrum præceptum sit? Sed quod non prohibetur, ultro permissum est. Immo prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum.'

Things in their own nature indifferent may be left so well enough; but it is not an indifferent matter whether we obey God and Christ or not, and perform divine service according to his will and appointment. And therefore the Scripture's silence cannot be pleaded here with any reason at all. They do not forbid us, in so many words expressly, to give the sacramental supper to a Turk; but who will therefore infer, he may? Why does not our author baptize persons after they are dead, to wash them from all sins committed in their lifetime; since the Scripture does not expressly forbid him to baptize such; nor any where declare persons so baptized shall not be perfectly cleansed and forgiven?

Again; where does the Scripture tell us in terms the Roman is not the only true catholic church? that oral tradition may not entirely be depended on? that the doctrine of sacramental justification is a mischievous error? as the learned bishop of Salisbury nevertheless justly calls it; and argues, as I have hitherto done, in direct contradiction to our author's way, that since this is nowhere mentioned in all the large discourses that are in the 'New Testament concerning justification, we have 'just reason to reject it". Pilgrimages, and all kinds of penance, &c., stand upon the same bottom. But to give an instance something nearer to the matter in hand; we are nowhere forbid to baptize our cattle, bells, tables, &c., but yet our author I hope, would never infer that they may, much less that they ought to be baptized; for to administer the sacraments to visibly unfit subjects, is no better than an impious profanation of them.

z Exposition of Article xi. p. 125.

Now from all this, instead of a great deal more which might easily be added, it clearly appears, if our author argues well, and the Scripture's silence be a sufficient reason for a thing, that he ought in honour and conscience to return to Rome; that is the least he can do. Nay, all the silly trumpery of Rome, the ancient as well as the modern, may be brought into play again by this one single topic; which manifestly opens a door to all the inventions of every fanciful brain, which has but the luck to hit on such odd notions as the Scriptures do not expressly contradict.

I suppose, sir, you may have seen, when you were at Padua, the sermon which good St. Anthony is said to have preached to a congregation of fishes, in one of his flaming fits of devotion; and since the Scripture nowhere forbids to preach to fishes, to trees, to wild beasts, &c., but commands to preach the Gospel to every creature, which seems to have the like colour with that which the pædobaptists urge for their tenet, why should we laugh at St. Anthony's zeal? For, according to our author's rule, he was much in the right, and our author himself ought to follow his example.

I intended to have dismissed this matter in fewer words, but it is insensibly grown under my pen. However, of the two extremes, I had rather allow myself to be too long, than too obscure. I am,

Sir,

Yours, &c.

LETTER VII.

THAT the Scripture does not leave infant-baptism so undetermined as some would pretend, is largely shewn from Matt. xxviii. 19--All laws equally oblige in all particulars mentioned in them-This applied to our present dispute-The commission necessarily obliges to teach all it intends should be baptized-Therefore infants cannot be included in that commission-The commission also requires that all of whom it speaks should be first taught, and afterwards baptized-The ridiculous objection of such as say, infants also are to be taught, answered-Some would evade the force, by confessing this commission relates peculiarly to the adult: which is directly giving up the argument-What the pædobaptists urge from the words all nations, answered-It is not said all of all nations-Illustrated by a parallel instance from Matt. iii. 5, 6—Mr. Dorrington censured-It is proved, the commission most directly excludes infants-What the pædobaptists urge concerning the Greek word μabŋrevσate, answeredDr. Hammond censured for so grossly contradicting himself in this point-Men of the greatest learning disown the criticism of the pædobaptists-A passage from the bishop of Sarum; another from Dr. Whitby-Manrevew, is constantly used to signify nothing less than to teach, &c.-The sense of the word proved from its etymology-The primitive, and all its derivatives include teaching, &c.-No room for an antiphrasis, which is now exploded by the best grammarians— The pretence from the termination, that words in -euw are to be interpreted by sum in Latin, is groundless-Plutarch uses the word to signify to teach--Another instance from St. Ignatius another from the same: another from the same-One from St. Clemens Alexandrinus; one from St. Justin MartyrThe meaning of eis rò ovoμa-Another instance from St. Justin -The word μabŋtevew, even in its supposed neuter acceptation, notwithstanding the contrary pretences, always includes teaching-Matt. xxvii. 57, considered-Instances wherein the word signifies to teach, &c., even when constructed with a dative case; from Plutarch; from Origen; from St. Irenæus, expounded by a passage of Socrates; and from Clemens Alex.

andrinus-The true sense of the word further illustrated by synonymous words-Instances of aideów, from Plutarch; from lian; from Plato-Instances of ȧkovw, from Pindar; from Diogenes Laërtius; from Plutarch---An instance of diaKouw, from Plutarch-A very remarkable instance of the sense of μabŋTevel, from Clemens Alexandrinus-Another from the same-One from Origen-Besides, if what our adversaries advance were right, it can be of no advantage to them, because the word in the commission is allowed to be transitive-Discipleship necessarily includes teaching-MaOnTeúw means to teach successfully; and therefore is indeed consequentially to make disciples.

I HOPE, sir, I may venture to say, that what was urged in my last amounts to little less than a demonstration, that it is the worst logic in the world to argue, as the pædobaptists do, from the supposed silence of the Scriptures; which I have shewn plainly enough is not only no argument for infantbaptism, but on the contrary, concludes as strongly against it, as any reasonable man can desire an argument should do. And this is the first of those considerations, which I pretend do utterly ruin our author's design, even though he should prove (as we shall hereafter see he does not) that the Jews did use to baptize their proselytes together with their children, and that the Christians soon after the apostolic times did so too; for you will allow me, that arguments from Scripture are of far more force than both these.

But in the next place I add another consideration, of much greater weight still; namely, that the Scripture does not leave this matter so undetermined as the pædobaptists would fain persuade themselves, but that it directly disallows of infant