A47535:364
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.
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 ⟨p. 103⟩Man, and in the same Covenant of Grace? together with Melchizedek and others I might mention? These were in Covenant, and yet without the Seal, as you call it; we do not read they were circumcised. And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's off-spring were in that Covenant of Grace? yet they had no right to Circumcision, the Seal (as you called it) of the Covenant, because none but Males were required or commanded to be circumcised. Suppose Abraham should have gone without a Command or Word from God, and have Circumcised his Females, and have reasoned after the rate you do, viz.
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 ⟨p. 103⟩Man, and in the same Covenant of Grace? together with Melchisedec and others I might mention? These were in Covenant, and yet without the Seal, as you call it; we do not read they were circumcised. And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's off-spring were in that Covenant of Grace? yet they had no right to Circumcision, the Seal (as you called it) of the Covenant, because none but Males were required or commanded to be circumcised. Suppose Abraham should have gone without a Command or Word from God, and have Circumcised his Females, and have reasoned after the rate you do, viz.
My Female children are in Covenant; and since the Covenant belongs to them, the Seal of the Covenant belongs to them, which is, Circumcision, therefore I will circumcise them also; would God have allowed him to do any such Act, think you? You will reply, I am sure that God would never have born with Abraham in doing any such thing, because he must have done it without a Command.