Mr. Stennett, in answer to Russen, has translated from the ingenious Monsieur Bossuet, will be a standing unanswerable objection to the Pædobaptist Protestants, and cannot be solved, but by flinging up Infant Baptism, or else by shewing it to be founded on Scripture, which nevertheless, 'tis confessed, can't be done: and the anonymous Answer to the Bishop of Meaux ingenuously acknowledges, that the passages produced do at most only prove, that it is permitted, or rather, that it is not forbidden to baptize infants." pp. 231, 2.

Here, besides the false accusation that we build our practice of Infant Baptism "only" on the tradition of the Church, Dr. Gale has again betaken himself to a sophism, which is couched in the word tradition; and that sophism is so transparent, that no one of the slightest discernment can fail to detect it. The tradition against which we contend in our controversy with the Papists is the tradition of their own Church, which is as "baseless as the fabric of a vision ;" whereas the tradition by which we defend Infant Baptism is that of the CHURCH UNIVERSAL, according to the Canon of Vincentius Lirenensis, quod ubique, quod semper; by this tradition, the Church of Rome is so far from being able to defend herself, or to assail others, that it is one of the brightest and keenest weapons by which that

corrupt Church has been cloven down by the reformers; and, what is more than all, by the evidence of this tradition, we Protestants are satisfied of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures themselves.*

But, if I do not misunderstand the following passage, Dr. Gale goes even farther than many of his communion will be disposed to accompany him : we have already seen that, in spite of himself, the doctor admits the validity of a just inference from Scripture in some cases, as, for example, in defence of female communion, which is no where expressly commanded or exemplified: and yet here follows a passage which seems to condemn this very principle, of being convinced by "good consequence." "The Scriptures being the records of revealed religion, nothing can be our duty but what they enjoin; and consequently we are to take no notice of what is not expressed in them." If these words had stood by themselves, and had not been limited in their significa

*

"We believe the book of Scripture to be canonical upon the credibility of Universal Tradition, which is a thing credible in itself, and therefore fit to be rested on." Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. chap. ii. sec. 25. And, “We have sufficient certainty of Scripture, not from the bare testimony of any present Church, but from UNIVERSAL TRADITION." Ib. chap. iii. sec. 27.

+ p. 234.

tion by the words that follow them, I should have been disposed to understand them in a sense which would, notwithstanding the very equivocal meaning of the term expressed, be consistent with Dr. Gale's avowed principles; but he has heroically determined to forego any such advantage, by distinctly telling us that he used the words strictly and precisely and, that the reader may not make any mistake, he illustrates his position in so plain a manner, as to make it impossible to misconceive him. Now let us suppose an argument to be employed in proof of the resurrection, solely from the book of the Old Testament in the following form: "That the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: for he is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him."* Where is the fact of the resurrection of the dead expressly asserted in this passage? These words were uttered by the lips of Truth itself; and are therefore true; but let it be remembered that the truth in this argument is not put forth upon the footing of authority, but of argumentation. Can any of Dr. Gale's followers shew me where it is said expressly here that the dead are raised? Yet this answer silenced the

* Luke, xx. 37, 38.

Sadducees, and satisfied the scribes and the multitude. Let us hear no more then of the invalidity of just reasoning from Scripture. Many of the most important truths of our Holy Religion are undeniably established by this very sort of evidence which Dr. Gale and his associates are so anxious to repudiate. "For our belief in the Trinity," says the learned and judicious Hooker, "the co-eternity of the Son of God with his Father, the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, the duty of baptizing infants; these with such other principal points, the necessity whereof is by none denied, are, notwithstanding, in Scripture no where to be found by express literal mention; only deduced they are out of Scripture by collection."*

a

But, says Dr. Gale, " "Tis a sure maxim of Tertullian, Negat Scriptura quod non nolat, (what the Scripture does not mention, it denies.) A maxim so fatal to the cause which depends upon tradition, that Le Prieure could not safely pass it by, without boldly accusing this ancient writer of heterodoxy. To apply this to our present dispute: Since the Scripture in all the places, where it speaks of baptism, is confessed to speak only of adult baptism, and never once to mention infants; one would think it should be an unavoidable con

* Eccles. Polity. book i. sec. 14.

sequence, that therefore the adults only which are mentioned, and not infants which are not, should be looked upon as fit subjects of baptism. If adult baptism only be mentioned in Scripture, then Infant Baptism to be sure cannot be grounded upon that Sacred Law-and to draw a home inference, it must be unlawful to baptize infants under pretence of divine authority, and as by commission from Christ; since it appears to be contrary to, or at least different from, his intention, which was that adult persons should be baptized and, as appears from the frequent mention of adults, and the total silence about infants, that this sacred ordinance should not be profaned by admitting such unfit subjects to it."*

{

Let us examine this passage. "The Scripture," says Tertullian, "denies, what it mentions not." Very well but how are these words to be understood? The Scripture enumerates the kings of Israel; and, amongst those kings, David: the Scripture reckons up the sons of David; and amongst those sons, Solomon. Now, that amongst all the kings of Israel, there was but one named David; and that amongst all the sons of David, there was but one named Solomon, Tertullian's argument undeniably proves; because, since the sacred volume proposed to enumerate all, if there

* pp. 235, 6.