A47605:43
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.
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.
Ob. Your Logic will do you no good, if you Argue no better. I must tell you, that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision, was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews, not because their Infants we•• in that legal Covenant with their Parents, but rather the express and positive Command of God ⟨p. 4⟩to Abraham; for evident it is, no Godly Mar•• Children, before […] days, had any Right to be Circumcised: And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their […] Infants without such a Commission or Command from God, •hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship […] and in like m•nner, If God […] required Christians to […] Infants, […] be no Precept nor Example […] the Holy Bible, it must […] worship in them so to […]. But God […] or required Christians to Baptize their Infants, there is no […] nor Example for any such Practice […] all the Holy Bible: Ergo, it is Will•worship in them so to do.
Ob. Your Logick will do you no good, if you Argue no better. I must tell you, that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision, was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews, not because their Infants we•• in that leg•l Cove•ant with their Parents, but rather the express and positive Command of God ⟨p. 4⟩to Abraham; for evident it is, no Godly Mar•• Children, before 〈…〉 days, had any Right to be Circumcised: And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈…〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God, •hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈…〉 and in like m•nner, If God 〈…〉 required Christians to Infants, be no Precept nor Exampe the Holy Bibl, it must worship in them so to . But God or required Christians to Baptize their Infants, there is no nor Example for any such Practice all the Holy Bible: Ergo, it is Willworship in them so to do.