A47605:274
The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a…
The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entitled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsely called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.
London: printed by John Harris, 1692
Title page typeset from the transcription.
THE Rector Rectified, and Corrected: OR, Infant-Baptism Unlawful. › Chapter 2
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.
3. You say, If it were the Will of God Infants under the Gospel should be reckoned as out of his Covenant, who were in Covenant, then it follows, say you, that our Saviour was unfaithful, or forgetful to his Church, in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration; but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Testament, from whence we may conclude, that Christ's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants, nor forbidding their Admission into the Church by Baptism, &c.
Answ. 1. I answer, had it been the Will of God, that Infants should under the Gospel be admitted into the Church by Baptism, Christ you might rather say, had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the least intimation of his Mind and Pleasure therein, who declared all things plainly from the Father, and was faithful as a Son over his own House.
2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters, is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative. And so you know 'tis in all last Wills and Testaments among Men, if it be not expressed in the Affirmative, it needs not be expressed in the Negative; and if not because 'tis not forbidden it may be done, so may a hundred things more; nay, many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too, for where are they forbid? The sum therefore of our Answer to all you say upon this account, is this; The Privileges which are Rites, Ordinances or Sacraments, are not so many as you would have, or so many as the Jews of old had, nor are they to be ⟨p. 67⟩administered according as you fancy or approve of, or according to your Reasonings, but according to God's express Appointment. Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book speak, Posit. 3, 4. p. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ,