A47535:363
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 10: Wherein the great Arguments, and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptism, concern…
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.
But, Secondly, if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham, yet it doth not from thence follow neither, that therefore their Children may be baptized, unless they can show the Lord Jesus hath enjoined them so to be, because Baptism wholly depends upon the Authority of Christ's Institution, or positive Prescription. 'Tis not enough for any to say, if Children are in Covenant, they may be baptized. Who tells them so? Hath Christ any where required it? doth he say they ought, or that it belongs to them? Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumcise his Children, because they were in Covenant with him, before God gave him a positive Law so to do; certainly, had he done it without any Command of God, and have called it God's Ordinance, he had ceased being called any more Faithful Abraham. Come, Sirs, your Consequences and Conclusions you have so long made a noise of, will make no Gospel-Precept, nor hold equal weight with the Balance of the Sanctuary.
But, Secondly, if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham, yet it doth not from thence follow neither, that therefore their Children may be baptized, unless they can shew the Lord Jesus hath injoined them so to be, because Baptism wholly depends upon the Authority of Christ's Institution, or positive Prescription. 'Tis not enough for any to say, if Children are in Covenant, they may be baptized. Who tells them so? Hath Christ any where required it? doth he say they ought, or that it belongs to them? Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumcise his Children, because they were in Covenant with him, before God gave him a positive Law so to do; certainly, had he done it without any Command of God, and have called it God's Ordinance, he had ceas'd being called any more Faithful Abraham. Come, Sirs, your Consequences and Conclusions you have so long made a noise of, will make no Gospel-Precept, nor hold equal weight with the Ballance of the Sanctuary.
For, thirdly, pray consider, Were there not divers in the Covenant of Grace, i. e. in that Spiritual, or Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham, in that very day and time that the Law of Circumcision was given forth? and yet they were not, from that Ground, to be circumcised, nor were they at all circumcised, because God did not command them so to be? Was not Lot a Godly