The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 55
CHAP. LV.
A Corollary for Infants Baptiſm. Infant-Baptiſm by Arguments aſſerted.
THen it follows by way of neceſſary Corollary, that Infants have right to Baptiſm, children of baptized parents are entitled to that Ordinance.
Firſt, thoſe that have been Church-members, and admitted with the initiating ſign and ſeal, are yet to be admitted, unleſſe order be given to the contrary; But Infants have been Church-members, and accordingly admitted by the initiating ſign and ſeal, neither is there any order for the contrary; Therefore Infants are Church-membes, and ſtill to be admitted.
Secondly, Thoſe that are under the Covenant-promiſes of God with the body of his people, have right to Baptiſm, Acts. 2. 39. But Infants are under the Covenant-promiſes of God with the body of his people; Infants therefore have right to Baptiſm.
Thirdly, Saints, or holy perſons have right to Baptiſm: Infants are Saints, they are holy perſons, Rom. 11. 1…. … Cor. 7. 14. Infants therefore have right to Baptiſm.
Fourthly, They that by birth according to the fleſh, are in the boſome of the Church, have right to Baptiſm: But Infants by birth according to the fleſh are in the boſome of the Church, Gal. 4. 29. Infants therefore ought to be baptized.
Fifthly, They that are admitted to Church-priviledges have right to Baptiſm, the leading priviledge; But Infants are admitted to Church-priviledges, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to Baptiſm.
Sixtly, The children of the Kingdome, that with others make up the Kingdome of God, have right to Baptiſm; But Infants are the children of the Kingdome, that with others make up the Kingdome of God, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to Baptiſm.
Seventhly, The heritage of the Lord are to be admitted to Baptiſm: But Infants are the heritage of the Lord, Pſal. 127. 3. therefore Infants are to be admitted to baptiſm.
Eightly, Thoſe that are to be ſaved, are to be added to the Church by baptiſm, Acts 2. 47. Infants are to be ſaved, and therefore are to be added to the Church by Baptiſm.
In all of theſe Syllogiſmes the minor is at large confirmed in the diſcourſe before going, the major in each ſhall preſently be at large confirmed, and ſo the concluſion will be undenyable.
Here it is objected with no ſmall noiſe, that Infant-baptiſme wants an inſtitution,Objections againſt Infants Baptiſm anſwered. we find no command for it in all New Teſtament-Scripture, where our warrant alone is for New Teſtament-Ordinances. Neither have we any example in the New Teſtament of an Infant baptized; whatſoever then our Arguments are, this concludes it to be without warrant. To ſpeak to theſe, and firſt to the inſtitution.
The inſtitution ſpoken to in this objection,The Queſtion ſtated whether there be any inſtitution of Infant-Baptiſm. either is an inſtitution of the Ordinance of Baptiſm it ſelf; or elſe an inſtitution with limit to Infant-age; For Baptiſm it ſelf they will not deny that we have warrant in the New Teſtament; John was ſent to baptize in the Nation of the Jews, John 1. 33. and the Apoſtles have the… commiſſion Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations. For an inſtitution with limit to Infant-age; we heard but even now there was no inſtitution in the Old Teſtament for Infant-Circumciſion. The inſtitution Gen. 17. 10. is for males without limit in reſpect of growth: I am ſure it cannot be affirmed that there is any inſtitution of Baptiſm in the New Teſtament, with limit to any determinate age or growth. This ob…ection if it have force in it, followed home, will overthrow all Baptiſm at any age, and every other New Teſtament-Ordinance whatſoever. Suppoſe a man of 20, 25, 30, 40, 50. years of age ſeeketh Baptiſm. According to this rule, he muſt bring a preſcript for one of this age to be baptized, and the ſame alſo for the Lords Supper. But it is replied, Beleevers of any age may be baptized, beleeve, and the age is not regarded. This will be eaſily yielded, if they be not already baptized, but then the inſtitution with limit to Infancy is waved; and upon the ſame account Church-Members in Covenant of any age, ought to be baptized, and ſo the inſtitution is not in queſtion about that there is an agreement. But whether Infants be in Covenant, or whether they be any Church-Members, is to be diſputed, which already is ſatisfied.
2. I ſay thoſe words of our Saviour. Matth. 28. 19. Diſciple all Nations, Infants are within the verge of the inſtitution of Baptiſme.baptizing them, &c. do comprize Infants in them as well as men of years; Infants ſerving to make up a Nation as well as Parents. The Infants of Nineveh did make a conſiderable party of the City of Nineveh. The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation, and the Nation where they came was to be diſcipled, and baptized. And that Infants are here comprehended, farther appears by this Argument.
In the ſame ſenſe and latitude as Nation was taken in reſpect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was reſtrained to that one onelyonly Nation, where the…r commiſſion was firſt limited; In the ſame ſenſe it is to be taken (unleſſe the Text expreſſe the contrary) now the commiſſion is enlarged. This cannot be denyed of any that will have the Apoſtles to be able to know Chriſts meaning, by his words in this enlarged commiſſion: But Nation then (as is confeſſed) did comprehend all in the Nation in reſpect of the Covenant, and nothing is expreſſed in the Text to the contrary; therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants. This Argument hath ſtrength from that of the Apoſtle, Acts 3. …5. Yea are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, ſaying unto Abraham, and in thy ſeed ſhall all the kindreds of the earth be bleſſed. As it was with the kindred of Abraham in reſpect of Covenant-holineſſe; ſo it is with all kindreds of the earth, they joyntly make one party in the Covenant But Infants of Abrahams kindred were in the Covenant, and of the Nation, in reſpect of Covenant-bleſſedneſſe.
But it will be ſaid, that an exception of Infants is implied, in that all of the Nation muſt be diſcipled before they be baptized: But Infants are not capable of being diſcipled; and ſo they are made uncapable of Baptiſm.
I anſwer. 1. Here is implied that they are of capacity to be Diſciples, in that Chriſt ſends to diſciple Nations, and they ſerve to make up the Nation.
2. It is the way of Scripture-ſpeaking of an univerſality of a people in a Land, expreſſely to except Infants in caſe they be to be excepted, as we ſee in the judgement that befell Iſrael in the wilderneſſe, to the cutting off of thoſe that came out of the Land of Egypt, Numb. 14. 38. And in the Covenant entered by the body of the Nation of all degrees and ſexes at their returne from Babylon, Nehem. 10. 28. and an exception could be no where more uſeful and neceſſary than there; to let us know that it is otherwiſe with Gentiles in this particular, then it was with the Jewes, that the Nations where their commiſſion thus enlarged, were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Miniſtry was firſt limited.
3. Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed, where ſpeaking by the Spirit of Prophecy of the rejection of the Jewes, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their ſtead (in that ample way as it is there ſet out) he hath theſe words: Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and ſet up my ſtandard to the people, and they ſhall bring thy ſonnes in their armes, and thy daughters ſhall be carried upon their ſhoulders, Iſa. 49. 22. If there were but ſuch an hint as that, by way of Prophecy, to have left them behinde, we ſhould from ſome, have heard of it with a noiſe.
4. In the Lord Chriſts own Dialect,Infans are Diſciples. who is beſt able to expreſſe his own meaning, they are Diſciples. To belong to Chriſt is to be a Diſciple of Chriſt. This is plaine from our Saviours own mouth, comparing his words recorded in Matthew and in Mark, To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a Diſciple, it is in the one, Matth. 10. 42. To give a cup of water to drinke in my name, becauſe ye belong to me, it is in the other, Mark 9. 41. To belong to Chriſt, to be a Diſciple of Chriſt, and to bear the name of Chriſt is one and the ſame thing with our Saviour. Now that infants are of the number of thoſe who as Diſciples in Chriſts account do belong to him, and bear his name, is yet farther plaine by another Text of Saint Matthew, Matth. 18. 5. where Chriſt ſetting a little childe in the midſt of his hearers, ſaith, Whoſo ſhall receive one ſuch little childe in my name, receiveth me. By all which it appeares, that which is done to Infants, is done to Diſciples, & hath a glorious reward as done to Diſciples. Infants therefore are Diſciples of Chriſt, are of thoſe that do belong unto him, and beare his name: Who then is not afraid to refuſe them who will receive Chriſt? Who will not baptize them that is willing to baptize Diſciples in the name of Chriſt?
For that part of the objection,The invalidity of that objection, that we have no example of Infant-Baptiſme examined. that there is no example in New Teſtament-Scripture on infant-Baptiſme. I anſwer.
Firſt, For an example of Baptiſme with limit to any one preciſe number of years, or dayes; we have but one that I know (if that) in Scripture, and that is of Chriſt, who was (as is computed) about the age of thirty, when he was baptized, if this be preſt and followed, all muſt at that alone be for Baptiſme, and no other of any age may be baptized.
Secondly, There are many things of which we make no queſtion, and yet we have no example of them: I have inſtanced in the trial of the ſuſpected wife by the water of jealouſie, that there is no example for it in all the Old Teſtament-Scripture; and for womens receiving of the Lords Supper, there is not a particular inſtitution, or any particular expreſſe precedent for it in the New Teſtament; They cannot give us any inſtance of any one trained up by believing Parents for Baptiſme, and aſſoon as he could give an account, baptized; not one childe of a Beleever brought up for covenant, and not in covenant. One goes about to give inſtance of particular precedents for womens receiving the Lords Supper. 2. And inſtead of a precedent urges, 1 Cor. 11. 28. as an expreſſe command in formal termes for women, foreign comprehending both Sexes. To this I have replied in my anſwer, pag. 52. We are then furniſhed with an expreſſe command in termes as formal, and with an example to boo…e of womens circumciſion; and ſo the difference between circumciſion and Baptiſme (ſo often laid in the diſh of Paedobaptiſts) here falls to the ground; Ye on the Sabbath-day do circumciſe, foreign a man, John 7. 22. if foreign a man on the Sabbath-day receive circumciſion, that the Law of Moſes ſhould not be broken, John 7. 23. Here is Moſes his command, the Jewes practice, with Chriſts approbation, in the ſame comprehenſive latitude in regard of both Sexes, as in Saint Paul for receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. And if arguments borrowed from Grammer uſe of words, be of that force; you ſee what they have proved, As foreign is taken in one Sacrament, ſo it is to be taken in another: But in the Sacrament of circumciſion it is limited to the male only, to which accords that Logick rule; Omne analogum stans per ſe, ſtat pro famoſiori analogato. To this is replyed that the ſubject matter of the command as well as the Grammar uſe of the word, proves females to be included, but then his expreſſe formal command is loſt, they are not expreſt, but included, and by conſequence onelyonly, which will not be denied. He farther ſayes, that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an expreſſe command in formal termes of womens receiving the Lords Supper; we being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of one bread. I demand, whether the Apoſtle ſpeaks in the perſon of Chriſtians, or in the perſon of women? not of women ſure, for he takes in himſelf, and he was a man, and then the formality of an expreſſe Example falls. He brings Acts 20. 7. that the Diſciples on the firſt day of the week came together to break bread. Here is an example as expreſſe and formal, as the former. They cannot infallibly prove by help of conſequence, much leſſe expreſſely, that there was a woman there. At that night-meeting there might be none but men, as at the firſt inſtitution. It can never be an expreſſe example till it be made to appear that none are Diſciples but women.
Thirdly, The examples that we have of a whole houſhold, being baptized; if ſome had them in hand, would be ſufficiently formal; but any thing will ſerve as an expreſſe proof, when they have a mind to affirme it, and nothing will ſerve to evince it by conſequence, when they have a mind to deny it. But as Diſciples are women, ſo families have children. There are Families without children, and there are Diſciples there are not women. The commiſſion is to diſciple Nations, and baptize them. Providence hath happily ordered that Nations have been brought in, and their Infants received to Baptiſme. In the Primitive times houſholds were baptized, without mention of excluſion of children, in after-ages houſholds have come in with their children.
Secondly,Infants want of faith and repentance, no impediments of their Baptiſme. It is yet objected, Men must believe and be baptized, Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptized, Acts 2. 39. Infants can neither beleeve, nor repent, therefore they may not be baptized; and will it not as directly follow, that when they can neither believe nor repent, they muſt be damned; let them frame an anſwer to the one, and then they have anſwered both; That which will ſpeak for them to receive them into heaven (notwithſtanding thoſe Scriptures that threaten condemnation to men in unbelief and impenitency,) will ſpeak alſo, to receive them into the Church by Baptiſme.The want of thoſe expreſſe words, Infants ought to be baptized is no impediment of their Baptiſme.
Thirdly, Some ſay, Where is it ſaid in ſo many words, infants muſt be baptized? Bring us thoſe words, we abhorre ſyllogiſmes and conſequences. To deale with them with their owne weapons; Where is it ſaid that Infants muſt not be baptized, where are thoſe words written? if they care not for our conſequences, we ſhall not care for theirs. They have anſwered. Negatives cannot be proved. To this we anſwer. 1. Where is that ſaid? we finde it no where in Scripture, that Negatives cannot be proved. 2. Chriſt proved Negatives, That himſelf was not a Spirit; A Spirit hath not fleſh and bones, as you ſee me have, Luke 24. 39. That God was not to be tempted, Mat. 4. 7. 3. if Negatives cannot be proved, then Negatives are not to be believed, ours is an Affirmative which they yield may be proved, theirs, is a Negative which they ſay cannot be proved, we then have the better of it, there is hope of proof on our ſide, theirs is deſperate.
To help the Reader in a word for the neceſſity of conſequences:Neceſſity of Scripture conſequence. If thoſe be fools that cannot gather conſequences from Scripture, to ſettle their faith upon them, then much more thoſe that deny them; But ſuch are fooles by our Saviours own teſtimony, that cannot gather conſequences from Scripture to ſettle their faith on them, Luke 24. 25, 26. O fools and ſlow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have ſpoken, ought not Chriſt to have ſuffered theſe things, and to have entred into his glory? Thoſe were fools and dullards that did not beleeve from the Scriptures of the Prophets, that Chriſt muſt ſuffer and enter unto glory. But thoſe words are no where in expreſſe words written: It is alone by conſequence from the Prophets words that we know them. Somewhat I have ſpoken to thoſe that reaſon in this ſort, leſt they ſhould be wiſe in their own conceit, I will have no more to deal with them, leſt I be thought to be like them.
Fourthly,Antiquity is for Infant-Baptiſme. There is a great flouriſh made by ſome, as though Antiquity were againſt Infant-Baptiſme, and famous flouriſhing Churches never received it: In which ſome have taken much pains, but never did men travel in a buſineſſe to leſſe purpoſe, as all may ſee that will take the pains to read what they have wrote, and bring it home to that which lies upon their hand to prove, which is, that Infant-Baptiſme is not ancient, as is pretended, that there were ſome ages of the Church in which it was not in uſe. In all of which ſearch of theirs and help that they have found from the greateſt Antiquaries of the Socinian party, no friends to the Baptiſm of infants, they cannot finde one Writer of any kinde whatſoever, or whereſoever, from the day that John baptized in Jordan, and in Aenon near Salom to this very year, that hath ſaid, and left on record, That there was no ſuch cuſtome as Infant-Baptiſm in his dayes; and when ſo many have expreſſely affirmed that the original, was from the Apoſtles, and that no beginning of it in the Church can be found, till ſome one appear in contradiction to aſſert the non-uſage of it in his time, let any indifferent Reader judge to what purpoſe all ſerves that can be ſaid. The primitive times had not muſical inſtruments in their congregations, they had not Altars, Images, they erected not Temples to Saints, this we hear from Writers in their ſeveral Ages, and in caſe they had not infant-Baptiſm (when the Church of the Jewes had infant-circumciſion, and the ancient, made Baptiſme to ſucceed circumciſion) and never any one mention their non-uſage of it, or give any reaſon concerning it, is above a wonder, the prime argument to render this practice to be of lower ſtanding, than is pretended, is the ſilence of ſome Authors of ancient, who times in their workes (as is ſaid) do not mention it, as Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, Epiphanius, and Euſebius, if it had been known in their times, why do they not once mention it? To this, much might be ſaid. 1. Every Writer doth not treat of all Subjects, nor deal in all Arguments, ſome have written in our age, and infant-Baptiſm is not found in all their Writings, ſhall after-ages infer upon their ſilence that infant-Baptiſme was not uſed in our times? 2. If ſome Writers do not mention it, yet others in the ſame time, or neer about, ſpeak fully to it. 3. Maſter Marſhal full proofs of it, in ſeveral of the Authors that are ſaid to be ſilent in it, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, and that in Epiphanius, that doth neceſſarily imply it. And thoſe that minde farther ſatisfaction of his Objections, drawn from the Queſtions put to the baptized, and the delay of Baptiſme by ſome, they may finde it in his Anſwer, and if he ingenuouſly confeſſed, that he craved the help of ſome learned Antiquaries, it ſpeakes but little ingenuity in thoſe that once and again upbraid him for it. I have put to the adverſaries ſeven Queries concerning the practice of antiquity about Infant-Bapti…me, with ſome Obſervations alſo about it, in my Anſwer of his Letter, page 3. to the tenth, which I thought might give ſome ſatisfaction to all that which hath been ſpoke to this thing, but have received no anſwer; It is ſaid by one that the determination mentioned by Cyprian, ſo farre as he can finde by ſearch, is the ſpring-head of infant-Baptiſme, which upon challenge made, he thus explaines. I did not deny that I found infant-Baptiſm practiſed before, but that the determination of that Councel was the ſpring-head that is the firſt determined rule or Canon, by force of which, it hath ſince continued in a ſtream, and this is true. It ſeemes the River had runne ſome hundreds of years before the ſpring-head brake forth, but not in ſuch a channel as a determinate rule or Canon, when it is well known that infant-Baptiſme was not in that Councel of 66 Biſhops at all agitated, much leſſe determined; It was not put to the Queſtion, but taken for granted by all that were preſent. The diſpute and the determination was upon that which Fidus queſtioned, which was the Baptiſme of infants before eight dayes old, and not infant-Baptiſme; how could he mean that it hath ſince continued in a ſtreame, by vertue of that determination or Canon, when he very well knowes there was neither determination nor Canon upon it, nor yet any need of it? They determined that which in their meeting was put to the Vote, that an infant under eight dayes might be baptized. So that this Quaere, as all the reſt, ſtands unſatisfied, and antiquity cleared for infant-Baptiſme.
It is yet farther ſaid,Infant Baptiſm is not beſtowed on unwritten tradition. that many learned men in former and latter times, take infant-Baptiſme onelyonly for an unwritten tradition; giving us a liſt of Popiſh Writers that have ſpoke to this purpoſe, a Cardinal in a Popiſh Councel, Bennus, Bellarmine and Eraſmus that had ſcarce ſtept over the threſhold from them: To which we anſwer, That it is no marvel, if theſe making it their buſineſſe to parallel unwritten Traditions with Scriptures, ſome of them to preferre them before them, and knowing infant-Baptiſme to be in honour in all Churches, do pin it upon unwritten Tradition, that ſo they may advance the honour of unwritten Tradition with it, yet even theſe cite Scriptures for it, and ſo marre their own market of Traditions, as thoſe that procure them are forced to acknowledge. When Bellarmine would argue the Scriptures imperfection, and aſſert a neceſſity of unwritten Tradition, then he can affirme that infant-Baptiſme, hath no other foundation, but when he will defend infant-Baptiſme againſt thoſe that matter not Tradition, he can finde Scripture for confirmation: Foreſeeing this Objection an Anſwer is brought out of Bennus, That ſome things may be proved out of Scripture, when the true ſenſe of Scripture is evident; and infant-Baptiſme is proved from John 3. 5. but the ſenſe whereby to prove it is manifeſt by tradition, Becan. Manual. lib. 1. cap. 2. ſect. 24. It is very well known that theſe Jeſuites will ſay as much of any point of Faith, and leave the whole meaning of all Scripture to reſt on the Churches interpretation, continued by tradition. As to the quotation of Proteſtant Authors, ſo many of them as have kept up the honour of Scripture, and made no defection from that way, it onelyonly ſpeakes their boldneſſe to affirme that any of them ever diſhonoured infant-Baptiſme in that way, as to ſettle it upon unwritten tradition, or to fixe it on ſuch a bottome. They very well know, that, as they defend the Scriptures full perfection, and make it their buſineſſe to oppoſe all that would, have it ek't out by any thing that is unwritten, ſo, they aſſert infant-Baptiſme on Scripture-foundation. Can they think that they have to deal with ſuch weak adverſaries, that whiles againſt their party they contend with Scripture-Arguments, that infants ought to be baptized, they will yield up the cauſe on the other hand to Papiſts, and confeſſe the inſufficiency of Scriptures. But the homonymie or various acception of the word Tradition,The various acception of the word Tradition. may deceive the unwary Reader; Sometimes tradition is taken in the proper ſenſe, for that which is delivered, or handed over from one to another, in this ſenſe, every point of faith is a tradition, and ſo is Baptiſm it ſelf, as well as infant-Baptiſme in which ſenſe Paul takes it, 2 Theſ. 2. 15. Stand faſt, and hold the traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epiſtle. Sometimes tradition is taken for that which is delivered in word, without writing, as there is diſtinguiſhed a tradition by word, and a tradition by Epiſtle; what Paul taught in his Epiſtles is a tradition, and what Paul delivered by word of mouth is a tradition, and both muſt be held. Here ſomewhat ſeemingly is ſpoken for unwritten traditions by the Apoſtle. For ſolution of which our Proteſtant Divines have taught us to(a)Diſtinguendum inter resquae traduntur in Eccleſia & rationem earum tradendarum. diſtinguiſh between the doctrine it ſelf that is delivered to us, and the way and manner of delivery. So Chamier de canone fidei, lib. 8. cap. 1. ſect. 16. The former of thoſe might admit of many ſub-diviſions. The way of delivery is either by writing in the Scriptures, or by lively voice by Gods Miniſters, as Chamier farther obſerves, ſect. 19. Here again we muſt diſtinguiſh between words and things, the words that are uttered and the doctrine that theſe words contain; all words are not written, all our words in Sermons are not written in the Scriptures, all Pauls words in his Sermons are not written in Scriptures, as appears by his diſtinction before delivered, by word or Epistle, but the doctrine it ſelf that we deliver is contained there; Paul preached nothing but that which Moſes and the Prophets ſaid ſhould come, Acts 26. 22. yet there were many words delivered by him, which Moſes and the Prophets never ſpoke;bQuadam & ſunt & dicuntur in Scripturis, quaedam vero ſunt in Scripaturis tametſi non dicuntur. N…zianzen. lib 5. de Theol. They yet teach us to diſtinguiſh between that which is expreſſely written in the Scriptures, and that which is by evident conſequence thence deduced: Ameſius defending the Scriptures perfection againſt Bellarmine, introducing unwritten traditions, ſaith,cNon quaeritur antotidem verbis omnia neceſſaria in Scripturis continentur, ſed vel ſententia expreſſa vel per neceſſariam conſequentiam inde colligenda. The Queſtion is not whether in ſo many words all neceſſary truths are contained in the Scriptures, but whether they may be gathered from thence, in any expreſſe ſpeech, or neceſſary conſequence? Bellar. Enervat. cap. 6. theſ. 1. Let Doctor Sclater in this be heard, who ſpeaking to this point, ſaith, Thus informe your ſelves, 1. Where generals are delivered, there are all particulars comprized in thoſe generals intentionally delivered, becauſe generals comprehend particulars. 2. Where principles and cauſes are delivered, there effects are alſo intended, as being virtually contained in their principles. 3. Where one equal is taught, all of like reaſon it taught, quia parium par ratio, and where there is par ratio, there is par lex: Where there is like reaſon, there is like law. So take contents of Scripture, no inſtance of any point of neceſſary, or but convenient faith and practice, can be given but what is delivered in the written Word. Doctor Sclater in 2 Theſ. 2. 15. and when they have well weighed theſe things they will finde ſmall cauſe to believe that they have any advantage from theſe Authors. Field (it is ſaid) ſayes, The fourth kinde of Tradition is the continued practice of ſuch things as are neither contained in the Scripture expreſſely, nor the examples of ſuch practice there delivered, though the grounds, reaſons, and cauſes of the neceſſity of ſuch practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that followeth it. Of this ſort is the Baptiſme of infants, which is therefore named a tradition, becauſe it is not expreſſely delivered in Scripture that the Apoſtles did baptize infants, nor any expreſſe precept there found that they ſhould do ſo, yet is not this ſo received by bare and naked tradition, but that we finde in Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. If they will ſubſcribe to that part, That the grounds, reaſons, and cauſes of the neceſſity of infant-Baptiſme are contained in Scriptures, then I will ſubſcribe to the other, that thoſe words, infants ought to be baptized are not the Scripture. Then Doctor Prideaux is brought in, who ſayes, Paedobaptiſme reſts on no other divine right then Epiſcopacy, but we are not told whether Doctor Prideaux goes about to bring down infant-Baptiſm to unwritten Tradition, or to bring up Epiſcopacy to divine right according to Scripture. And out of theſe Premiſſes this concluſion is inferred, that the Ancients and learned afore Zuinglius did account infant-Baptiſme to have been an unwritten tradition, having reaſon from Scripture not evident of it ſelf, but to be received from the determination of the Church. Which for ought that I can diſcerne is thus gathered, ſome Papiſts to ſet up unwritten traditions have, in contradiction to themſelves, faſtened infant-Baptiſme upon it, of which onelyonly one lived before Zuinglius. Some Proteſtant Writers, every one of them living after Zuinglius ſpeak not one word to the purpoſe: Ergo the learned before Zuinglius did account infant-Baptiſme to be an unwritten tradition. Me thinks the Scripture-Arguments which may be found in Authors far above Zuinglius his ſtanding, as in Aquinas 3. part. quaeſt. 68. art. 9. Auguſt. de Baptiſ. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. with others, might with more ſtrength conclude, that they reſted on a written foundation, and were not ſatisfied with unwritten tradition.