to faith, and a clear evidence of pride, either to reject any of those things which the scripture contains; or to introduce any thing that is not written in the sacred page. That of Ambrose also is held in esteem; "Where the scripture is silent, who shall speak?"†-Nor is Tertullian's maxim in less repute: "The scripture forbids what it does not mention."-Here they tell us, that "we ought to respect the silence of the scripture;" and they lay it down as a general rule, that "no one need be ashamed of not knowing what God has not revealed;" because, " he that would go farther, gives up his wisdom and endangers his safety."|| They farther assure us, "that divine revelation is the only foundation, the only rule, and the only law, of all religious worship that is pleasing to God, or accepted by him;" and that, "when once a person maintains it allowable to pass over the limits of the divine command, there is nothing to hinder him from running the most extravagant lengths." They assure us" that will-worship was always condemned of God, and that it is profane to present to God what he does not require, or to perform worship which he did not appoint." **—They tell us that "we ought not to worship God with any other external worship, than what himself hath commanded and appointed us in his holy word."†† -"The scripture," say they, "hath set us our bounds for worship, to which we must not add, and from which we ought not to diminish; for whosoever doth either the * In Bp. Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, sect. v. No. xi. p. 97. In Morning Exercise against Popery, p. 214. De Monog. cap. iv. § Mr. Claude's Essay on Comp. of a Serm. vol. i. p. 316. || Dr. Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, p. 434, edit. 2nd. Dr. Owen's Theologoumena, 1. iv. digress. iii. § 8; 1. v. c. xv. § 2. See also his Exposit. of Heb. vol. ii. p. 68, 133. ** Christ. Schotanus, apud Lomeierum, De Vet. Gent. Lust. ++ Bp. Hopkins's Works, p. 107. cap. xiv. one or the other, must needs accuse the rule either of defect in things necessary, or of superfluity in things unnecessary: which is a high affront to the wisdom of God, who, as he is the object, so is he the prescriber of that worship which he will accept and reward."*-They insist, that he who "shall appoint with what God shall be worshipped, must appoint what that is by which he shall be pleased;" that "by nothing can he be worshipped, but by what himself hath declared that he is well pleased with;" that "to worship God, is an act of obedience and of duty, and therefore must suppose a commandment-and is not of our choice, save only that we must choose to obey;" consequently, that “he that says God is rightly worshipped, by an act or ceremony, concerning which himself hath no way expressed his pleasure, is superstitious, or a will-worshipper."† They "admire that ever mortal man should dare, in God's worship, to meddle any farther than the Lord himself hath commanded." They tell us, that “nothing is lawful in the worship of God, but what we have precept or precedent for; which, whoso denies, opens a door to all idolatry and superstition, and willworship in the world."§ They say, "From the words of our Saviour, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines, (viz. about worship,) the commandments of men,' we clearly demonstrate that it is unlawful to worship God with any rites, however indifferent in themselves, if they are not prescribed by God." entreat us "to consider, that what God hath thought needless to appoint, men ought not to make, or pretend to be necessary or important, or even useful. What he commands not in his worship, he virtually forbids."¶ * Bp. Hopkins's Works, p.107. They + Bp. Taylor's Ductor. Dub. b. ii. chap. iii. p. 347, 348. § Mr. Collings, in Jerubbaal, p. 487. Mr. Peirce's Vindicat. of Dissenters, part i. p. 16. ¶ Dr. Mayo's Apology and Shield, p. 44. They inform us, that "a practice [in religious worship] not being enjoined, is forbidden;-being disallowed, is reprobated;"* that, "the declared will of God being the most certain and happy rule of man's practice, especially in those duties which have no foundation, save in divine revelation; it is the greatest arrogance and affront to the wisdom and will of our Lawgiver; to contradict him therein; "t that "to prescribe any thing [in religious worship] which God hath not commanded, though he hath not forbidden it, is such an invasion of his prerogative, that he hath punished it by a remarkable judgment, (Lev. x. 1;)" that "in religious matters, and especially in the worship of God, it is not only sinful to go contra statutum, but to go supra statutum; or that, "to speak home in the case, in religious matters, acting supra statutum, is all one with acting contra statutum: therein God's not requiring being equivalent to forbidding; and doing more than he commandeth, to doing contrary to it."§ They insist, that "works not required by the law, are no less an abomination to God, than sins against the law." | "To serve God," they assure us, "is to do every thing under this contemplation, that what we do is the will of God. His will must be not only the rule of what we do, but the very reason why we do it; else our doings are not his servings." They tell us, "that the silence ¶ of scripture" is a sufficient ground of rejecting the sign of the cross, exorcism, and similar appendages of baptism in the church of Rome; because those things "not being written in the sacred volume, are there * Bp. Hurd's Introduct. to Stud. of Proph. p. 393, edit. 1st. + Morning Exercise against Popery, p.760. Mr. Charnock On Man's Enmity to God, p. 97. § Vanity of Human Inventions, p. 23, 24. fore condemned."*-Once more: They commend "the renowned Waldenses, for declaring and maintaining, some hundreds of years ago, that "nothing is to be admitted in religion but what only is commanded in the word of God." † Reflect. IV. Such being the grounds of those arguments, and the tenour of that reasoning, which are used against the unscriptural ceremonies of the Romish church; what should hinder a fair application of the same principles and the same arguments to Pædobaptism, if there be neither precept nor precedent for it in the sacred volume? No Protestant, I presume, will question the propriety of Chillingworth's remark, or the justness of that inference to which it leads, when, reasoning against the Papal infallibility, he says: "That our Saviour designed the bishop of Rome to this office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written-ad Rei memoriam-by any of the evangelists or apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences; he that can believe it, let him."-Is then the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, so strange and so incredible to Protestants, because it is not once mentioned by Christ or his apostles; and shall any of our Brethren charge us with gross ignorance or strong prejudice, for opposing infant baptism, while they themselves allow that it is not so much as once expressly mentioned in all the New Testament? Were the Papal infallibility a fact, it must be considered as a positive grant of our divine Lord, resulting merely from his own sovereign pleasure; and, consequently, it would be impossible for us to know any thing about it farther than revealed in the Bible. And is not Pædobaptism, in this respect, a similar case? May not * Mastricht Theolog. I. vii. c. iv. § 19. Turret. Institut. Theolog. loc. xix. quæst. xviii. § 3, 4. + In Jerubbal, p. 162. Relig. of Protest. part i. chap. ii. § 22. we therefore, with a little alteration, adopt the language of Mr. Chillingworth? Yes, we will thus take up his idea: That our Saviour designed infants should be baptized, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written so much as once by evangelists or apostles; though they often mention baptism, as appointed, as practised, as important; but leave the claim of infants on that ordinance to be made out by the long labour of inferential proof-by a consideration of proselyte baptism, Jewish circumcision, the Abrahamic covenant, and such passages of scripture where baptism is either not mentioned at all, or mentioned only in reference to adults; he that can believe it, let him.- Or, shall we renounce this Protestant principle of the famous Chillingworth, and follow the example of Mr. Fisher the Jesuit? who, when vindicating the worship of images, says: "In the scripture there is no express practice, nor precept, of worshipping the image of Christ; yet there be principles which, the light of nature supposed, convince adoration to be lawful."* -The following appeal of Dr. Mayo will also apply, mutatis mutandis, in all its force: "Had our Lord and his apostles, who esteemed not their lives dear unto them to promote the good of souls, thought parochial, diocesan, and metropolitan districts necessary, or even important and useful, judge you whether they would not have given at least one instruction or command concerning them."† Reflect. V. Is it not strange, is it not absolutely unaccountable, if our Lord intended infants should be baptized, and if they actually were baptized by the apostles, that it should not be so much as once expressly recorded in all the New Testament? Baptism itself is frequently mentioned-mentioned, as an appointment of Christ, as a duty to be performed, as an ordinance * In Popery confuted by Papists, p. 127. Vid. Chemnitium, Exam. Concil. Trident. p. 562. ↑ Apology and Shield, p. 21. |