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 ...
Benjamin Keach 1640–1704London : Printed for the author, and are to be sold by Nathaniel Crouch ..., 1689
[8], 183, [1] p. · 55k words · Wing K68 · ESTC R17190
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.
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.
That Doctrine that reflects upon the Honour,1 Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ our blessed Mediator and glorious Law-giver, or renders him less faithful then Moses, and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament did, cannot be of God. But the Doctrine of Infants Baptism reflects upon the Honour, Care, and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, &c. or renders him less faithful than Moses, and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament. Ergo, Infants Baptism cannot be of God. The Major certainly none will deny.
The Minor is easily proved: Can any thing reflect more upon the Honour of Christ, &c. than this? as if he should neglect to speak out his Mind and Will to us plainly, or be so careless about it, that sorry Man is forced to try his Wit to supply what is defective and wanting in ⟨p. 97⟩
this Matter in Christ's Word; for he is strangely left of God and benighted, who will not confess Infant Baptism to need much of humane Craft and Cunning to make it out from Christ's New Testament; and when he has done all, he leaves it as doubtful as he found it in the Judgment of indifferent Persons. Did Moses deal thus with the Children of Israel? No, no. How careful was he to deliver every Law, Statute, and Ordinance exactly, particularly the Law of the Passover! Do but read how careful and circumspect he was in that, in all respects and matters relating to it. Nay, and the Wisdom of God was such, to leave nothing then in the dark, but gave order that all Things might be made plain, that he that run might read it, and he that did read, might know the Duty, i. e. the Statu•e or Ordinance, (tho in many things they might need instruction how in a right Spirit to be found in it, and what it signified.) But I dare affirm, no Man who reads the New Testament, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations, a thousand times over, shall ever from that Holy Word, or any place or part of it, find it to be his Duty to baptize his Child; the Word of God is powerful in convincing Men of their Duties, as well as of their Sins; but in this it fails, it has no Power to convince Mens Consciences. The Faith of Persons must stand in the Wit and Subtlety of Men, in respect of Infant-Baptism, and not in the Power of God, and efficacy of his blessed Word. Let some show us the Person, who only by reading the New Testament was convinced of Infant-Baptism; though, 'tis true, divers by reading of the Writings of Learned Men, and their subtle and sophistical Arguments, (for so I must call them) have been persuaded to believe it to be
⟨p. 98⟩
of God.—Yet, after all, some of them have plainly signified the great Ground and Argument they build upon, is this, viz. Because such and such Learned, Godly, and Wise Men, assert it to be a Truth of Christ. So that it appears very clear, they build their Faith herein, not upon the Authority of God's Word, but upon the Credit and Authority of Men.
The Minor is easily proved: Can any thing reflect more upon the Honour of Christ, &c. than this? as if he should neglect to speak out his Mind and Will to us plainly, or be so careless about it, that sorry Man is forc'd to try his Wit to supply what is defective and wanting in ⟨p. 97⟩this Matter in Christ's Word; for he is strangely left of God and benighted, who will not confess Infant Baptism to need much of humane Craft and Cunning to make it out from Christ's New Testament; and when he has done all, he leaves it as doubtful as he found it in the Judgment of indifferent Persons. Did Moses deal thus with the Children of Israel? No, no. How careful was he to deliver every Law, Statute, and Ordinance exactly, particularly the Law of the Passover! Do but read how careful and circumspect he was in that, in all respects and matters relating to it. Nay, and the Wisdom of God was such, to leave nothing then in the dark, but gave order that all Things might be made plain, that he that run might read it, and he that did read, might know the Duty, i. e. the Statu•e or Ordinance, (tho in many things they might need instruction how in a right Spirit to be found in it, and what it signified.) But I dare affirm, no Man who reads the New Testament, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations, a thousand times over, shall ever from that Holy Word, or any place or part of it, find it to be his Duty to baptize his Child; the Word of God is powerful in convincing Men of their Duties, as well as of their Sins; but in this it fails, it has no Power to convince Mens Consciences. The Faith of Persons must stand in the Wit and Subtilty of Men, in respect of Infant-Baptism, and not in the Power of God, and efficacy of his blessed Word. Let some shew us the Person, who only by reading the New Testament was convinced of Infant-Baptism; though, 'tis true, divers by reading of the Writings of Learned Men, and their subtil and sophistical Arguments, (for so I must call them) have been perswaded to believe it to be ⟨p. 98⟩of God.—Yet, after all, some of them have plainly signified the great Ground and Argument they build upon, is this, viz. Because such and such Learned, Godly, and Wise Men, assert it to be a Truth of Christ. So that it appears very clear, they build their Faith herein, not upon the Authority of God's Word, but upon the Credit and Authority of Men.
But certainly it must needs, as I said, reflect upon the Honour and Faithfulness of Christ, to conclude Infant-Baptism to be of God: for can any think the Lord Jesus would leave so great an Ordinance, or Sacrament, of the New Testament, so obscure and dark in his Sacred Word, had it been his Mind that Believers should baptize their Children, since the Apostle magnifies Christ's Faithfulness, who is the Son, above that of Moses, who was but the Servant? And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant, for a Testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, Hebr. 3. 5. But Christ as a Son over his own House, &c. ver. 6. and therefore was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, ver. 3.
Besides, do but consider what Darkness and Confusion the Asserters of Infant-Baptism seem to be in, about the Proof and Right they say Children have to it.
5. One says, if either of their Parents are Believers they may be baptized; some say both Father and Mother, both must be godly Persons and in the Covenant of Grace, or else the Child has no Right to be baptized. No marvel when Men have lost their way, they are thus lost in a Wilderness.
That Ordinance God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto,1 nor denounced any Threatening or Punishment on such who slight, neglect, and contemn it, it is no Ordinance of God. But God has made no Promise to Persons who baptize their Children, nor denounced no Threatening or Punishment on those who slight, neglect and contemn it. Ergo, Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God.
That Ordinancé God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto,1 nor denounced any Threatning or Punishment on such who slight, neglect, and contemn it, it is no Ordinance of God. But God has made no Promise to Persons who baptize their Children, nor denounced no Threatning or Panishment on those who slight, neglect and contemn it. Ergo, Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God.
Let any such who assert Infant-Baptism, show us a Promise to the Obedient herein, or a Threatening denounced against the Disobedient thereto, and we will say no more. There are Promises made to Believers in their being baptized, that's evident; and Punishments threatened on such who reject the Counsel of God in that respect, the like there is in respect of any other Gospel-Ordinance, but none of this in the Case of Infant-Baptism.
Let any such who assert Infant-Baptism, shew us a Promise to the Obedient herein, or a Threatning denounced against the Disobedient thereto, and we will say no more. There are Promises made to Believers in their being baptized, that's evident; and Punishments threatned on such who reject the Counsel of God in that respect, the like there is in respect of any other Gospel-Ordinance, but none of this in the Case of Infant-Baptism.
CHAP. X. Wherein the great Arguments, and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptism, concerning the Covenant Circumcision, and Infants Church-membership, are Examined, and Answered.
Children of Believers are in Covenant,1 as well as their Parents. The Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, or Gospel-Covenant, to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed; and as Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Faithful under the Law, so Baptism belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Gospel, or else the Privileges under the Gospel would be less than those were under the Law.
Children of Believers are in Covenant,1 as well as their Parents. The Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, or Gospel-Covenant, to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed; and as Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Faithful under the Law, so Baptism belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Gospel, or else the Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than those were under the Law.
Answ. There hath been enough said, over and over, by Mr. Tombs, Mr. Danvers, and many others, to detect and utterly vanquish the weakness of this Argument.
