A47605:457
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 4
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.
Answ. I must retort this Argument back again upon you also, and show 'tis a great Argument against Infant-Baptism, and not for it. For, say I, let it be considered that since there was such a long Space of time as 60 Years, and much longer, between John Baptist and the Death of John the ⟨p. 127⟩beloved Disciple, or John the Evangelist, 1during which time many thousands of Infants were born of baptized Believers, both Jews and Gentiles. Now Reader, pray observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel-Day, and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach, they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized; but upon the Parents believing and being baptized, he says, their Children were admitted to Baptism also. Now say I, since many Parents thus taught and baptized, had Multitudes of Infants born to them; How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized? no not from the time of John Baptist, to the Death of John the Evangelist? Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized, that God would not have left some account of it, to put the matter out of doubt, especially since it was never taught doctrinally, or commanded? certainly, it could not stand consistent with the Care, Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to have hid and concealed such a Practice, had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized. But since the Scripture is silent in it, we may assure our selves 'tis not the Will of God Infants should be baptized. Also if those who were to be baptized, were first to be taught, were first to repent and believe; then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were of ripe Years, and able so to do.
Answ. I must retort this Argument back again upon you also, and shew 'tis a great Argument against Infant-Baptism, and not for it. For, say I, let it be considered that since there was such a long Space of time as 60 Years, and much longer, between John Baptist and the Death of John the ⟨p. 127⟩beloved Disciple, or John the Evangelist, 1during which time many thousands of Infants were born of baptized Believers, both Jews and Gentiles. Now Reader, pray observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel-Day, and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach, they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized; but upon the Parents believing and being baptized, he says, their Children were admitted to Baptism also. Now say I, since many Parents thus taught and baptized, had Multitudes of Infants born to them; How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized? no not from the time of John Baptist, to the Death of John the Evangelist? Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized, that God would not have left some account of it, to put the matter out of doubt, especially since it was never taught doctrinally, or commanded? certainly, it could not stand consistent with the Care, Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to have hid and concealed such a Practice, had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized. But since the Scripture is silent in it, we may assure our selves 'tis not the Will of God Infants should be baptized. Also if those who were to be baptized, were first to be taught, were first to repent and believe; then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were of ripe Years, and able so to do.