Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre where he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the VVater holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death and buried with him should rise also with him to go on in a new Life Thus far And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant as this and other Learned Men observe what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from dipping into sprinkling which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries for which purpose our Saviour ordained it For 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to these Mysteries nor can they be signified thereby What Figure of a Burial of Christ or of the old Man is there in sprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Person 's Face Or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection O how is Christ's holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism and the Signification thereof destroyed the Lord open your Eyes or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is as also the true Subject But to proceed St. Ambrose saith VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged to wash away all Sins there all Sins saith he are buried We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this i. e. that all Sin is buried Moreover Chrysostom saith that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immersion under Water and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life and therefore concludes the contrary Custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and Mystical Signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with It has been too long as I have formerly noted God grant Men more Light to see their Error and abhor to do so any more Kecker says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth saith he plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I VVhere hath Christ since the first Institution instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World Has Christ given any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances or make them void by these Traditions or set up their Post by his Post How doth God complain by the Prophets against his People of old for presuming to change his Laws Deut. 12. 13 God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded Exod. 20. 24 25. that his Altar should be made of Earth or rough Stone but in Isa 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Transgressions and Disobedience in acting contrary to his express Institution A People saith God that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face that sacrificeth in Gardens and burneth Incense upon Altars of Brick You may think that was no great Error instead of Gold or Stone to make Altars of Brick but what saith God they for this c. provoke me continually to my Face O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants Aâ—as you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet silent and doth not manifest his Displeasure yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law and may manifest it too in his own time But to proceed and call in for more Witnesses against your Practice Daillâ— on the Fathers saith that it was a Custom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Eâ—…s in the VVater And saith he Tertullian in his third Book de 〈◊〉 Mil. Cyprian in his seventieth Epistle p. 211 c. and others testify it Dr. Cave saith that the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under the VVater which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those Times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism For as in immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into the VVater his abiuing under the VVater and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in our Conformity thereupto our dying to Sin the Destruction of its Power and our Resurrection to a new course of Life So by the Person 's being put into the Water was lively represented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh c. by his being under it which is a kind of Burial into the Water his entering into a State of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for sometime under the State or Power of Death therefore 't is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by Immersion or rising up out of the Water is signified his entering upon a new course of Life that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in Newness of Life Thus Dr. Cave We are said saith PaÌ„raeus to die and to be buried with Christ in Baptism And further shews that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration St. Bernard saith Immersion is a Representation of Christ's Death and Burial Against all these Testimonies and multitudes more of the best and most Learned Writers Mr. Burkitt objects as follows and you seem to argue after the same manner these are his words viz. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face representing the whole Person doth answer the Use and End of Baptism as well as when administred by aipping or plâ—nging then dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing but the one answereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other therefore the one cannot be more essential than the other What is the End and Use of Baptism but to represent to our Minds 〈◊〉 Effusion of Christ's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging
it is not denyed but that Infant Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that doth him no kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many Respects in those and after times downwards His fourth Demonstration is this viz. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask him and you or any other of our Opposers whether ye do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors See Mr. Perkins Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. These are his Words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as Kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Honey use of Milk and Wine Hierom in Is c. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the Baptized and the Party baptized used to Exuffiate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers Mr. Owen saith That Infant-Baptism was so generally in the Church of God that the Pelagians could not deny it tho they denied Original Sin against the which it was a Medicine And that Bernard who lived between the Year 1091 and the Year 1153 declareth it was the Practice of the Church in those Ages Answ We deny not but readily grant that the Baptism of Infants was in the Church long before that time And remarkable 't is that about 1091 or 1100 Popish Darkness was at its greatest height And was it any wonder those Fathers gave Baptism to Infants when it was the Practice of those times before Bernard to give Infants the Lord's Supper also as well as Baptism Which Mr. Owen knows well enough if he hath read any thing of History 2. Bernard Mr. Owen saith Censur'd those who opposed Infant-Baptism c. 1. From whence it appears there were some Christians who opposed Infant-Baptism even in the darkest time of Popery 2. What Wonder is it to hear that such in those corrupt times who deny'd Infant-Baptism were censured when we who do deny it now are so unrighteously censured by you and your Brethren notwithstanding such clear Light in these days is broken forth Mr. Owen also endeavoureth to prove that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism And he seems to charge Mr. Tombs and Mr. Danvers for asserting the contrary Answ To which I answer I see no reason why he should condemn Mr. Tombs or Mr. Danvers in this matter for according to some Histories it appears that the Antient Waldenses and Albigenses as also the Antient Britains were for the Baptizing of Believers see D. Balthazar Lidius in his History of the Church p. 2. col 2. out of Renarius and G. Bildas in his Book called De Historia Aurelii Ambrosii And the Learned Usher in his Book of the State of the Christian Church as Mr. Danvers observes p. 237. shews that they desended Believers-Baptism in opposition to that of Infants see Moreland Book 1. c. 4. p. 67. yet no doubt but some of the Waldenses might be for Infant-Baptism Yet Mr. Owen confesseth that Bernard acknowledgeth that History doth speak of the Waldenses denying Infant-Baptism tho he would fain have it from what the said Bernard saith to be a Slander cast upon them by their Enemies the Papists Let it be how it will concerning them know Noble Britains that we build not our Faith about Baptism upon the Practice and Custom of Men Fathers General Councils Protestant Reformers or Churches but upon the Word of God To conclude with this Argument From hence we infer that the practice of the Church under the Romish Apostacy of Infant-Baptism in every Age since the first Centuries unto these Times is no good Proof for it What tho Calvis and Luther two famous Protestant Reformers and many other Modern Divines were and many Godly and Learned Men are now for this Tradition Must it be therefore a Truth Must our Faith stand in the Wisdom of Men in this matter or in the Power of God and in the Authority of his Sacred Word Our first Protestant Reformers were raised up to restore those Grand Fundamentals of Faith more than to reform Matters of Discipline and about this Rite of Infant-Baptism and some other Ceremonies The Path of the Just is as a shining Light that shines more and more to the perfect Day Prov. 4. 18. You Hint that not one questioned the Privilege of Children to Baptism until the Adversary came while Men slept and sowed Tares among the Wheat Answ Sir you mistake it was while Men slept that the Enemy first sowed the evil Seed of Babes-Baptism in the Church Moreover the Baptism of Believers in opposition to Infant-Baptism I have proved is no part of those Tares the Adversary hath sowed but it is Seed which Jesus Christ himself sowed or 't is I mean his own holy Institution You tell us a Story of one John Smith a Minister of the Church of England who went into Holland and united with the Church of one Mr. Ainsworth and in the end being cast out of the Church he baptized himself and theâ— rebaptized others Answ I could tell you of many evil and foul things and practices done by some Presbyterians but should I brand the whole Brotherhood from thence Do you not shew an evil and detracting Tongue by casting such Odiums upon the whole Body of gracious Christians falsly called Anabaptists For we are not for Rebaptizing or Baptizing again such who have been truly and rightly Baptized that were the proper Subjects of that holy Ordinance 2. But may be this may be a false Story too and wrote in prejudice by such who loved not the practice of baptizing of Believers nor the People who so practise For what need had he to baptize himself were there none called Anabaptists in Holland nor Germany before that time 't is much we have not the Munster Story of John of Leydon I perceive you have malice enough against us the Lord give you Repentance if it be his Will CHAP. XVIII Shewing that Infant Baptism is no excellent way or means to plant the Christian Religion but a sinful thing and therefore in opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith They ought not to be baptized being an Answer to what he hath wrote in his 15th Chapter
Light broke forth in WALES Expelling DARKNESS OR THE Englishman's Love to the Antient Britains BEING An ANSWER to a BOOK Intituled Children's Baptism from Heaven published in the Welch Tongue by Mr. James Owen Wherein his Twelve Arguments for the baptizing of the Children of the Faithful are examined and confuted and Infant-Baptism overthrown Also proving that Baptizing is Dipping the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father c. And that Believers are only the Subjects of Baptism In which the Anti-pedo-baptists are cleared from all those unjust Reproaches and Calumnies cast upon them by the said Mr. Owen By BENJAMIN KEACH Bernard Serm. 66. in Cantica Irrident nos quia Baptizamus infantes quod oramus pro mortuis quòd sanctorum suffragia postulamus Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jesus gedoopt zijnde is terstont opgeklomen yit hit Water Taken out of the Dutch Testament in English thus And when Jesus was dipped he came out of the Water London Printed and sold by William Marshal at the Bible in Newgate-street 1696. To all Godly Christians who are Pedobaptists in South and North-VVales Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ You Worthy Brethren and Antient Britains I Kindly salute you in the Bowels of Christian Love and Sincere Affections I cannot but love all who have the Image of my Heavenly Father stampt upon their Souls 'T is not your Opinion of Pedo-Baptism tho an Error that shall alienate my Heart from you nor restrain that Catholick Love that should run in all the Veins of every one that is born of God tho I am an Enemy to your Opinion and Practice in that case yet a dear Lover of your Persons and precious Souls And I have so much Charity to believe that 't is through Ignorance you err in that Matter and that God hath for some wise ends hid the truth of his Holy Ordinance of Gospel-Baptism at present from you and do hope did you see otherwise you would practise otherwise Charity thinketh no evil c. 1 Cor. 13. One Reason oâ— my writing this Epistle to you is to answer what Mr. James Owen in his Epistle to his late Treatise hath wrote unto you in which there are several Positions and â—â—sound Notions laid down and asserted by him which I am persuaded I ought to detect and witness against as well as answer his Book which are not only contained in his Epistle to you but that also to the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones To confirm Infant-Baptism upon the Covenant of Grace he asserts in his Epistle to Mr. Jones these words viz. I being desired and importuned by you to maintain this present Truth which seâ—teth forth Infants Right unto the Privileges of the New Covenant a Truth builded upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets even as antient as the Covenant of Grace which was made with Adam and his Seed c. Answ Doth Mr. Owen think that we deny that any our Children have right to the Covenant of Grace God forbid the Controversy lies not there for all our Children that are elected are decretively in the Covenant of Grace also vertually by the Death and Merits of Jesus Christ and also actually they are and shall be in it when they believe or when they have Union with Christ but that the Children of the Faithful as such or as so considered are in the Covenant of Grace we do utterly deny 2. If the Covenant of Grace was made with Adam and his Natural Seed as such will it not follow that he owns Universal Salvation Can any Perish that are in the Covenant of Grace Is not that an everlasting Covenant well ordered in all things and â—â—re 2 Sam. 23. 5. and is not the Promise sure to all the seed Rom. 4. 16. it being not only confirmed to them all by the Promise but also by the Oath of God Heb. 6. 13 18. 17. But 3. Doth not the Covenant and Promise to Adam run only to Christ Jesus or referr to him who is there meant by the Seed of the Woman True we will allow that it comprehendeth also all the Elect of God in a large sense but primarily and directly to Christ personally considered But can any think this Promise is limited to the Carnal Seed of Believers or runs so My Brethren There are two Seeds the one is called The Seed of the Woman which we affirm is only Christ and all the Elect in him and to all these the Covenant of Grace doth appertain and to no more as to the Special Blessings and Privileges thereof The other are called The Seed of the Serpent who are the Ungodly which proceed some of them from the Loins of the Faithful as well as from the Loins of the Wicked for as some Unbelievers Seed are in the Election of Grace so some of the Seed of Believers are none of the Elect. But to proceed saith he if the Children of the Faithful are out of the Covenant of Grace they have no Hope and are without God in the World Answ We and all our Children by Nature were dead in Sins and Trespasses and Children of Wrath as others and so without Hope and without God in the World Eph. 2. 13. before we Believed this was our Condition and are not our Children naturally in this state But what tho yet when God calls them renews them and translates them out of the First-Adam and grafts them into the Second-Adam they have the same Hope and the same God to be their God as we have Again He saith Doubtless the First Covenant doth condemn them because of Original Sin and if without interest in the Covenant of Grace the Wrath of God abideth on them but God forbid that we should think there 's more Vertue in the First-Adam to Condemnation than there is in the Second Adam to Save Answ The case is plain the First-Adam and all his as so considered were lost being Children of Wrath and of Condemnation And the Second-Adam and all his are or shall be saved being Children of the Promise and of Eternal Salvation But doth Mr. Owen think that all the Children of the Faithful as such are the Seed or Children of the Second-Adam I say again Are all our Children in the Election of Grace or doth Election run only in that Line If the First-Adam had stood we and our Children would have stood Doth Faith in the Second-Adam make the Condition of our Children worser than it should be through the Obedience of the First Adam Answ Must God save all the Children of the First-Adam by the Obedience of the Second because if Adam had stood none of his Children had fallen What Doctrine is this You out do all the Arminians I have yet met with but O! the Riches of God's Sovereign Grace to any of the lost Seed of Rebellious Mankind If this you intend not yet is every Believer a like common or publick Head to his natural Off-spring as Adam was to his Christ
only is the publick Head of his Seed a Believer's Faith objectively justifies and saves himself only not his Children Could Reverend Mr. Jones find no better a Pen to defend his Cause of Pedo-Baptism My Faith may be said to unite me to Christ but doth it also unite my Child to Christ Whatsoever good Children do receive from their believing Parents besure the Parent 's Faith doth not render his Child a Believer but however my Faith doth not make the Condition of my Child worser than it was and it may not make the Condition of my Child better for all the good Counsel Education good Example and Prayers some Children have from their Godly Parents they make them not the better 'T is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth Mercy You intimate what Cause there is of bitter Sorrow in the Churches of God that the Major part of their Children are out off from the Covenant of Salvation Answ Our Doctrine cuts off not one Child of any Believer that is in the Covenant of Salvation if God hath elected the major part of the Children of the Faithfull we say they shall be saved 'T is impossible for any to cut off one of God's Elect. But what is this to their Children as such or to the positive Right any of our Infants have to Baptism Do you cut off your Infants from the Covenant of Salvation because you will not give them the Blood of the Covenant I mean the Lord's Supper Brethren Both the Sacraments are Ordinances that are of meer positive Right viz. depending as to the Subjects and all Matters thereunto belonging upon the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of the Lord Jesus the great Law-giver and as they that come to one Ordinance are to examine themselves and to discern the Lord's Body So all they that come to the other are to believe in Christ and to repent from dead Works You mistake 't is not the Eternal Covenant of Grace that you say you stand up in the Gap to maintain but you strive to introduce in Gospel-Times an external relative Covenant according to the Flesh like that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as he was a publick Head and Father of the whole House of Israel or of the National Political and Typical Church of the Jews Nay you would fain have all the Seed of Believers to be in that Covenant that peculiarly and absolutely did belong to the Natural Seed of Abraham as such and none else Now 't is this thing which we deny we say that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham signified by Sarah and Agar And tho there was Grace and Mercy in both yet the Covenant of Grace or Free Promise was not made to Seeds as of many i. e. not to all the natural Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such but primarily it was made to Christ and in him to all the Elect who alone are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace That the Election takes hold both of some of Believers Seed and some of the Seed of Unbelievers is evident and tho God may comprehend in his Eternal Love more of our Seed than of the Seed of Unbelievers yet I have proved in this Treatise and Reply to Mr. Owen that the Covenant of Grace and the Election of God runs nor to the Seed of the Faithful as such and also that Believers Seed nor Unbelievers Seed until they believe in Christ ought to be baptized nor taken into the Visible Church because 't is not the Covenant of Grace considered as such that gives any Person a Right to Baptism but the meer positive Command of our Lord Jesus Christ whose express Command and Commission injoins none to be baptized but such who are Believers or such who are discipled by preaching the Word Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. John 4. 1. Acts 2. 37. Acts 8. 12 14. Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. Mr. Owen tells Mr. Jones who he says hath the Tongue of the Learned that his desire was that he would be a Disputant for those Weaklings who are not able to dispute for themselves Reply He tells us one while that Mr. Jones desired and importuned him to write his Treatise and at another time he says his Will and Desire was that Mr. Jones should do it As touching the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones I have had such an account of him by a Worthy Minister that I am fully satisfied that had he wrote on this Subject we should have had no such bitter Reflections or ill Treatment as we meet withal from this Man He hath dipped his Pen into Gall and Wormwood and hath made work for Repentance besides I am informed that Mr. Jones neither put him upon this Work nor approves of it tho perhaps when he saw his Forwardness he might say Go on and do it Sirs those Weaklings he means need no such a Disputant he hath done them no service nor the Church of God either we throw none of them out of that Eternal Covenant of which he speaks nor can Men nor Angels do it such of our Infants that are in the Eternal Covenant are safe enough But we deny that our Infants are in that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his natural Seed as such And this I doubt not but you will find in the insuing Answer sufficiently proved Moreover He says He stands up in the gap to maintain the Eternal Covenant which God made with the Faithful and their Seed Great is the Truth and it will overcome Reply He should not boast before he puts off his Armour that may be a Truth in a Man's Opinion which is a gross Error in it self You will when you have read our Answer the better judg whether he hath prov'd the Baptism of Infants to be from Heaven as in the Title of his Book he asserts it is He farther says We are Fathers and the Law of Nature teacheth us to preserve the Inheritance of our Children Reply Our Affections are not less to our Children than his we are Fathers also but are not willing to give an Inheritance to our Children which of right belongs not unto them Grace nor gracious Privileges in the New Covenant come to be the Inheritance of our Children in a Natural way as they are our Off-spring tho evident it is in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham the Jews and their Seed as such had an Inheritance given them by the Lord i. e. many Legal and External Privileges besides the Land of Canaan which Circumcision was a Token or Sign of but we and our Children have no right to that Inheritance They had the Shadow we and our Children that believe have the Substance they had the Shell we the Kernel The true Inheritance is by Faith that it might appear to be of Grace and not in Circumcision
also saith Baptism is a sign of present Regeneration not future Now how inconsistent is this Infant Baptismal-Covenant to the Covenant of Grace and also to the nature of that Baptismal-Covenant Believers or true justified Persons enter into when baptized according to Christ's Institution Nothing can be more clear than this viz. that Infant 's Baptismal-Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Circumcision viz. a conditional legal Covenant Do this and thou shalt live perform the Obligation and thou shalt be justified but do it not and you shall be damned or be cut off So that Infant-Baptism established the old legal conditional Covenant Let such who hold the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider it and also see whether it doth not render the Covenant of Grace different in its nature in respect had to Believers themselves and to their Children For Believers themselves receive Christ as Sinners by Faith only without any previous Qualification or promissory Covenant that Christ hath obliged them to enter into But their Infants are put upon previous conditional Qualifications which must be performed by them before justified Indeed had Christ ordained Baptism to oblige us to believe to repent to die to Sin to be regenerate as the Pedo-Baptist speak of their Baptism doth do it was something to their purpose but the contrary plainly appears Were these things carefully considered I am sure Infant-Baptism would fall to the ground for the nature of their pretended Baptismal Covenant is quite repugnant to the true Baptismal Covenant Christ instituted therefore pernicious Besides how are those baptized Infants in the Covenant of Grace as Mr. Owen and others say and yet Baptism as to the main Desâ—â—n and End of it in their cloudy Conceits and Apprehensions is to oblige them to believe c. that they may actually be in the Covenant of Grace The good Lord give you Understanding in all things and bless to your Profit what I have wrote and praise God for that Readiness that was in your Brethren and Countrymen to be at the great Charge of the Publication of this Answer to Mr. Owen He saith in the Title of his Book Childrens Baptism is from Heaven Strange yet no where instituted nor any Authority for it or ever owned from Heaven certainly you will find it is of Men and sprang out of the Antichristian Apostacy Search the Scripture be like the Noble Bereans Acts 16. 11. Who with all Readiness of Mind received the Truth and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Brethren I shall add no more but commit you to God and intreat you to read this Book over and over without Prejudice and if you receive any Light by it give God the Glory for I desire to be nothing yet am willing still to serve you and the Interest of Christ who shall subscribe my self your Servant for Jesus Sake Soâ—thwark London this 11th of the 11th Month 1606 Benj. Keach To all Godly Anti-pedo-baptists especially to them in South and North-Wales the Author of this Treatise wishes Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Beloved in our dear Redeemer AT your desire I have as the Lord hath helped me answered Mr. James Owen ' s Book in which he hath cast many false and slanderous Reflections on you and all other Anti-Pedo-Baptists but I have forborn returning Railing for Railing tho perhaps some of my Words may seem a little too sharp but his way of Writing called for it I hope the Translators of his Book first out of Welch into Engiish and again the Translation of my Answer out of English into Welch is done faithfully if it be according to the true Sense and Purport of his Words and Meaning the different placing of Words he can have no ground to cavil at but of that I am not capable to judge because I understand not the Welch Tongue He seems to reflect very severely upon some of your Conversations as if you wanted that true Piety that becomes your Holy Profession and also as if you wanted Charity but I hope it is his own uncharitable Spirit that led him out thus to write and that you are People who rest not on the Form of Godliness without the Power and that you also love all in whom you see the Image of Christ The Truth is he of all Men might have forborn such a Charge considering how short himself appears in that respect having laboured to cast you and all Anti-Pedo-Baptists out of the Universal Church and chargeth us who dipp believing Men and Women in the Name c. with Adultery and Murder O that the Lord would open his Eyes and give him true Repentance Brethren this Answer hath swelled much bigger than you expected which I am my self troubled at But pray pardon me in this case Because this Controversy was never before printed in the Welch Tongue as I am informed as it is here I was therefore willing the Godly in Wales or any of the Antient Britains that desired Information herein might see the main Arguments that other Pedo-Baptists have brought for Infant-Baptism fully answered The Substance therefore of Mr. Burkitt ' s late Book is in this also answered and divers others nay there is scarcely an Argument that hath been brought for Infant-Baptism formerly or of late but 't is here answered Also I have in following Mr. Owen in his Repetitions been forced to repeat some things often which may add to the Bulk but they being chiefly some of the main Points I did it on purpose to the end they might have the greater Influence upon the Reader Moreover I have shewed that most of Mr. Owen ' s Arguments for the baptizing of Children tend every way as forcibly to prove they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper also which I desire may be carefully weighed and considered I have often repeated that on purpose And now to conclude Let me desire you to labour to adorn the Holy Gospel you profess with a sutable and becoming Conversation 't is not an External Ordinance that signifies any thing without true Faith and a Godly Life You have Lamps but O see you have Oyl in your Vessels not that I blame you for your great Zeal for this precious tho despised Truth of Christ considering what a Glorious and Illustrious Institution or Blessed Ordinance it is as appears 1. By the Obedience of our Blessed Saviour himself unto it which puts a great Lustre and Glory upon it 2. In that it is called a fulfilling of that Righteousness which the Holy Gospel calls for and such who fail herein are imperfect touching their doing the whole Will of God 3. In that it was so gloriously owned at the Baptism of our Saviour by the Father nay by the whole Trinity By the Father by a Voice from Heaven The Son by his actual Obedience to it as our Example when we believe The Holy Ghost by descending like a Dove in a visible manner and
resting upon our Blessed Lord this was the time when he was gloriously sealed Mat. 3. 16 17. 4. In that hereby all baptized Believers do signify their stedfast Faith in the Blessed Trinity and do devote themselves to serve and worship the Three Persons in the Godhead Mat. 28. 19 20. 5. Because it doth so clearly bold forth and confirm us in the stedfast Belief of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of our Resurrection at the last Day Rom. 6. 3 4. 6. Also considering the many great and gracious Promises made to such Believers who are baptized as Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 37 38. 7. Considering what a significant Ordinance it is in respect had to that Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life in all its true and proper Subjects together with that Obligation it lays them under Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12 13. 8. That it is particularly called the Counsel of God and such who refused to be baptized are left on Sacred Record under that black Odium of rejecting the Counsel of God Luke 7. 30. 9. 'T is a great Ordinance appears in that it is an Initiatory Ordinance into the Visible Church Acts 2. 41 42. 10. In that those who were baptized with the Holy Spirit were nevertheless commanded to be baptized with Water Acts 10. 48. The highest Gifts of the Spirit cannot exempt Persons from their Obedience hereunto Moreover we have herein also Fellowship with Christ in his Death and Resurrection Therefore let none rob you of Christ's own Baptism be not cheated with a listle filthy Dross of Christ's pure Gold nor endure to see your Lord's Wine mixt with filthy Puddle-Water Yet carry it with all Christian Charity Love and Humility towards all Godly Christians that differ in this Matter from you and strive to walk as you are obliged by your Holy Baptism to do then will God have Glory and you have Peace to whose Holy Care Blessing and Protection I shall commit you and remain your unworthy Brother in the Sacred Bonds of the Gospel Benj. Keach A TABLE of divers Authors cited in this Treatise in each Chapter and under many particular Heads First THAT Baptizing is to dip as to the literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek Word and asserted so to be by these Authors following as cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. chap. 2. chap. 3. chap. 4. Casaubon quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Acts Chap. 1. ver 5. pag. 10 11. cited in this Treatise Chap. 1. p. 4. O'ecumenius on Acts 2. ver 2. quoted also by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 11. cited in this Book Chap. 1. p. 4. Scapula and Stephens see their Lexicons cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 12. Grotius Pasor Vossius quoted by Mr. H. D. his second Edition of his Treatise p. 182. Mincaeus in his Dictionary Dr. Du Veil in his literal Exposition of the Acts Chap. 1. 5. and his Exposit on Mat. 3. 5. Leigh in his Critica Sacra all cited in this Book Chap. 3. pag. 12. Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius Erasmus See Mr. Leigh Critica sacra and Dr. Du Veil on Acts. cited in this Book p. 12. Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. cited in this Book Chap. 4. p. 20. Salmasius in his Book Deprim p. 193. see his Notes upon Sulpitius Severus cited in this Treatise Chap. 3. p. 13. lin 1. Beza on Matth. 3. 11. cited in this Book p. 13. Selden De Jure Nat. c. L. 2. c. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Ainsworth upon Levit. Chap. 11. 32. cited in this Treatise p. 13. What is cited p. 13 14. of Luther the German and John Bugenhagius is taken out of Dr. Du Veil p 76. Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments Part 1. Chap. 8. p. 177. cited in this Treatise p. 13. Synod of Celichyth Anno 816. as quoted by Dr. Du Veil on the Acts Chap. 2. p. 75 76 77. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 13. Dan. Rogers Treatise of the Sacraments P. 1. Chap. 5. cited here p. 19. Dr. Jer. Taylor Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. Numb 9. Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. cited in this Book p. 13 14. Zepper quoted by the same Doctor Sylvester Squropulus also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. cited in this Treatise p. 13. St. Ambrose Lib. de Initiandis and as quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Notes Printed at Oxon 1677. also quoted by Dr. Du Veil on Act. 2. p. 78. Musculus on Matth. 3. 5. cited here p. 20. Luther Latin Tom. 1. Fol. 71. cited in this Book Chap. 3. p. 14. John Bugenhagius Pomeranus as quoted by Dr. Du Veil out of a Book Printed in the German Tongue Printed 1542. cited in this Treatise p. 14. Mr. Joseph Mede Diatrib on Titus 3. 2. cited here Chap. 3. p. 15. Casaubon on Matth. 3. 11. cited here in p. 19. Chamier Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. cited in this Book p. 15. Diodate on Matth. 3. Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Matth. 3. 10. cited here p. 15. Mr. Pool's Annot. on Mat. 3. 6. Mat. 28. 2. John 3. 23. cited in this Book p. 16. Mr. Ball in his Catechism cited here p. 16. Dutch Testament on Mat. 3. 16. cited here p. 16. Secondly That Baptism is dipping or burying of the whole Body in Water to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new Life Authors that assert this follow Assembly in their Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. Pool's Annotations on Rom. 6. 3 4. here cited Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Tilenus in his Disputation p. 886 889 890. all cited in this Book Chap. 4 5. p. 30 31. Piscator cited in this Treatise p. 17. Cajetan upon Rom. 6. 3 4. cited in this Treatise Chap. 5. p. 29 30. Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. cited in this Book p. 31. St. Ambrose Basil the Great Basil Seleucia Chrysostom Lactant. Bernard Justin Martyn All quoted by Sir Norton Knatchbull see his Book cited in this Treatise p. 35 36 37. Ignatius Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelph Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity p. 320. cited in this Treatise p. 22. Dallie on the Fathers L. 2. p. 148. cited in this Book p. 32. Paraeus upon Ursin p. 375. cited in this Treatise p. 33. Mr. Perkins on Galat. Vol. 2. chap. 3. p. 257. Vol. 1. chap. 33. p. 74. Dr. Sharp present Archbishop of York see his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. p. 9. Dr. Fowler present Lord Bishop of Gloucester in his Book Design of Christianity p. 90. Dr. Sherlock Dean of Paul's Charity without Usury p. 1. cited here p. 38 39. Dr. Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury in his Book Sermons on several Occasions the fifth Edition p. 188 189. cited here p. 39. Anonymous French Author cited by Dr. Du Veil on Acts p. 292 293. Calvin L. 4. c. 16. cited in this Book Chap. 5. p. 41. Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. cited in
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
Word from Corruption but not the Humane History of the Fathers 2. But should this Father and St. Austine and others that followed them be for Infant Baptism what will this avail the asserters of Infant Baptism seeing the Church was before their times so greatly corrupted and many grand Errors brought in the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers one of the Church of England hath lately shewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptism which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apostolical Tradition 3. We readily grant that Infant baptism is of great Antiquity of more then Thirteen Hundred years standing so are many other abominable Errors Practices and corrupt Ceremonies but from the beginning it was not so viz. 't is not to be found in Holy Scripture it is none of Christs Institution therefore an Human Invention nor was it practised in the Two first hundred years after Christ as I shall now prove out of as good Authors as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce 1. 'T is said Justin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church It appears there was no Infant baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says that there was no Children but aged and understanding Persons Baptized in this Age that is to say in the Second Century Wal. Strabo Eccl. Hist cap. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith he Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be Taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ Why doth Innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs So that they who are not trusted with an Earthly Inheritance are trusted with an Heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayest appear to have given it to them Dr. Taylor saith that the Truth of the business is as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council a provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And though that is no argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretended it to be necessary nor to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith Love and Patience after Preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery p. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces Thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says that anciently none were baptized but Persons of ripe Age. Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Cap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is not perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Name both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us to Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the learned Dr. Du-Veil in his Third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first Believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du veilon Acts c. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith the Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration saith Dr. Du-Veil Of those who dye without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not administred by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishops Son being a long time bred up under his Fathers care was not saith the said Dr baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith he John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Miletius was not yet baptized till he was One and Twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty years of age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times Children of baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil saith The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants see Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and learned Author it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romish Church for baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the surety does in the Infants Name a clear distinct confession of Faith is required which the same surety rehearseth in the Infants Name i. e. a Renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Dr. to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized themselves asked Baptism in their own Name and of their own choice and professed their own Faith In the Neo-Cesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized