A47399:198
[The axe laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism and church-membership containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3, 10].
London : Printed for the author, and are to be sold by John Harris, 1693
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And if all must be Accepters, or Rejecters, then all, and every individual Pers•• are under, and must have as great Express, particular and authoritive Command▪ to accept and receive Christ, and every Thing of Christianity, in its Right, Order▪ and Manner, as another, p. 1.
And if all must be Acccepters, or Rejecters, then all, and every individual Pers•• are under, and must have as great Express, particular and authoritive Command▪ to accept and receive Christ, and every Thing of Christianity, in its Right, Order▪ and Manner, as another, p. 1.
Tho' you bring this for to prove Infants must be Baptised, and so receive Jesus Christ,— yet, I must tell you, it quite overthrows all you strive to do. — For, 1. Where is there an express, particular, and authoritive Command for them, to receive Christ by Baptism, or any Ordinance, or Principle of Christianity, whilst Infants? And where is there any Rule, or Order in all the New Testament, that the Adult must first Believe, and then be Baptized; but Infants must be first Baptised, and then Believe: Sir, God's Word knows nothing of the last, and the Right of Baptism only depends upon Christ's positive Precept, and Example of the Apostolical Church. 2. I affirm, That Infants cannot be said, as such, to be Receivers of Christ, nor Rejectors of him, because they are capable to do neither; nor is there any other way taught in the Gospel of receiving Christ, but by Faith. He that is Baptised, who hath no Grace, no true Grace, true Faith, is but a Baptised Infidel.
Obj. You Object Infants have the the Habit of Faith, or the Habit of Grace.
Answ. We deny it; see how you can prove it, i. e. That Infants as such, have the Habit of Faith. Who is able to know that? What, tho' God may change the Hearts of some dying Infants, or some who did live, were sanctified in the Womb, Doth it from thence follow, all Infants in common, or as such, ha•e their Hearts changed, or are so sanctified?
2. You are to prove, That sacred Habits, infused by the Holy Ghost, may be utterly lost; for, 'tis evident, Infants that live, when grown up, ⟨p. 39⟩tho' Baptised, have no other Habits, then such have, who never were Baptised.
How can you prove, There can be the Divine Habits of Grace in Infants, and yet those Habits lie still, as dead in them, for so many Years, as 'tis from the time they are Baptised, to their Conversion? A sacred Habit, is a Principle of divine Life; yea, a most active, and lively Principle. Can the weakness of Nature hinder the Operations of the Holy Ghost, in Infants, when the Power of the Devil can't, in the Adult? When God works, who can let? Can there be fire, and no heat? Sure, such a mighty Cause would have like weighty Effect on the Souls of Children, were it as you suppose.
Obj You say p. 10. we must prove no Infant is Converted or else grant some Infants to be there; that is, John did Baptise Infants.
Answ. You mistake, your Work it is to prove what you affirm: We are not to prove a Negative; yet I shall now, prove that John the Baptist did Baptise no Infants, but only the Adult.
Answ. You mistake, your Work it is to prove what you affirm: We are not to prove a Negative; yet I shall now, prove that Iohn the Baptist did Baptise no Infants, but only the Adult.
Arg. 1. If John Baptist required Repentance of all those that came to be Baptised by him, and Infants are not capable to Repent, then he did not Baptise any Infants.
Arg. 1. If Iohn Baptist required Repentance of all those that came to be Baptised by him, and Infants are not capable to Repent, then he did not Baptise any Infants.
But John Baptist did require Repentance of all such that came to be Baptized of him. Ergo,
But Iohn Baptist did require Repentance of all such that came to be Baptized of him. Ergo,
He bad them Repent: Repentance was his grand Doctrine; and, he also exhorted them to bring forth Fruits, meet for Repentance, Mat. 3.8.
Arg. 2. If the being the Seed of Abraham as such, or the Off-spring of Believers, would not give the Jews a Right to John's Baptism, then John Baptised no Infants: But the former is true. Ergo,
Arg. 2. If the being the Seed of Abraham as such, or the Off-spring of Believers, would not give the Jews a Right to Iohn's Baptism, then Iohn Baptised no Infants: But the former is true. Ergo,
I have proved largely, in this Treatise, That the Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed as such, would not give any of his Off-spring Right to Gospel Baptism. Think not to say within your selves, ye have Abraham to your Father. If you Answer this Argument, you must Answer this small Treatise.
Arg. 3. If the Covenant for the external In-Covenanting of Infants as such is Abrogated, and the Fleshly Seed cast out, by the Establishing the Gospel Covenant, then John Baptist Baptised no Infants: But the former is true. Ergo,
Arg. 3. If the Covenant for the external In-Covenanting of Infants as such is Abrogated, and the Fleshly Seed cast out, by the Establishing the Gospel Covenant, then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants: But the former is true. Ergo,
This Argument is largely proved in the precedent Discourse.
Arg. 4. If Infant-Baptism does them no good, there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism, then John Baptist Baptised no Infants: But Infants Baptism does them no good, there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism. Ergo.
Arg. 4. If Infant-Baptism does them no good, there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism, then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants: But Infants Baptism does them no good, there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism. Ergo.
