A47448:724
A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by…
A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Giles Shute ... being an answer to his vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the prevalency of Anabaptism, showing that Mr. Hercules Collins's reply to the said author remains unanswered : wherein the baptism of believers is evinced to be God's ordinance, and the baptized congregations proved true churches of Jesus Christ : with a further detection of the error of pedo-baptism : to which is added, An answer to Mr. Shute's reply to Mr. Collins's half-sheet / by Benjamin Keach.A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Gyles Shute ... being an answer to his vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the prevalency of Anabaptism, shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's reply to the said author remains unanswered : wherein the baptism of believers is evinced to be God's ordinance, and the baptized congregations proved true churches of Jesus Christ : with a further detection of the error of pedo-baptism : to which is added, An answer to Mr. Shute's reply to Mr. Collins's half-sheet / by Benjamin Keach.
London: printed for H. Bernard, 1694
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.
Arg. 18. If Baptism is of mere positive Right, wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ, the great Legislator: And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized: then Infants ought not to be baptized: But Baptism is of mere positive Right, wholly depending on the Will and sovereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ, the great Legislator, and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.
This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptism, taken from the Covenant made with Abraham; and because Children are said to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumcised, because they were begotten, and born of the Fruit of his Loins, till he received Commandment from God to circumcise them. Had he done it before, or without a Command from God, it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done. Moreover, this further appears to be so, Because no godly Man's Children, nor others in Abraham's Days, nor since, had any Right thereto, but only his Children, (or such who were bought with his Money, or were proselyted to the Jewish Religion) because they had no Command from God so to do, as Abraham had. This being true, it follows, that if we should grant Infants of believing. Gentiles, as such, were the Seed of Abraham (which we deny) yet unless God had commanded them to baptize their Children, they ought not to do it; and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Christ, it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them.
Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apostolical Primitive Times, were baptized upon the Profession of Faith, were baptized into Christ, and thereby put on Christ, and were all one in Christ Jesus, and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs, according to Promise. But Infants, as such, who are baptized, were not baptized upon the Profession of their Faith, nor did they put on Christ thereby, ⟨p. 6⟩