A47535:342
Gold refined, or, Baptism in its primitive purity proving baptism in water an holy…Gold refin'd, or, Baptism in its primitive purity proving baptism in water an holy…
Gold refined, or, Baptism in its primitive purity proving baptism in water an holy institution of Jesus Christ ... : wherein it is clearly evinced that baptism ... is immersion, or dipping the whole body, &c : also that believers are only the true subjects (and not infants) of that holy sacrament : likewise Mr. Smithies arguments for infant-baptism in his late book entitled, The non-communicant ... fully answered / by Benj. Keach ...Gold refin'd, or, Baptism in its primitive purity proving baptism in water an holy institution of Jesus Christ ... : wherein it is clearly evinced that baptism ... is immersion, or dipping the whole body, &c : also that believers are only the true subjects (and not infants) of that holy sacrament : likewise Mr. Smythies arguments for infant-baptism in his late book entitled, The non-communicant ... fully answered / by Benj. Keach ...
London : Printed for the author, and are to be sold by Nathaniel Crouch ..., 1689
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Chapter 9: Containing several other Arguments, proving, why not Infants, but Believers only, are t…
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.
If no Man or Woman at any time or times were by the Almighty God,1 Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles neither commended for baptizing any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such; then Infants Baptism is not of, nor from God.
- 1Arg. VI.
But no Man or Woman was at any time or times either commended by the Almighty God, &c. for baptizing any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such. Ergo, Infants Baptism is not of, nor from God.
This Argument remains good and unanswerable, unless they can show us that there is some Gospel-Ordinance and universal Duty enjoined on Men, that no Man or Woman was ever commended for doing it, nor reproved for neglecting it: when they can show that, this Argument will be invalid.
This Argument remains good and unanswerable, unless they can shew us that there is some Gospel-Ordinance and universal Duty injoyned on Men, that no Man or Woman was ever commended for doing it, nor reproved for neglecting it: when they can shew that, this Argument will be invalid.