A47605:95
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.
That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision, but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism. Gen. 17.9, requires Infants to be Circumcised; show us but such a Text in all the New Testament, that says, […] Infants be Baptized. Thus you have stated ⟨p. 17⟩our Objection, to which you give a threefold Answer.
That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision, but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism. Gen. 17.9, requires Infants to be Circumcised; shew us but such a Text in all the New Testament, that says, 〈…〉 Infants be Baptized. Thus you have stated ⟨p. 17⟩our Objection, to which you give a threefold Answer.
I acknowledge (say you) that in the New-Testament, though it be not wholly silent, yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism; and that for two Reasons, 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case, therefore the New-Testament speaks so little—The Old-Testament plainly informs us, that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church. Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament? for it is not the Old-Testament alone, nor the New-Testament alone, but both together, that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice, &c.
I acknowledg (say you) that in the New-Testament, though it be not wholly silent, yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism; and that for two Reasons, 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case, therefore the New-Testament speaks so little—The Old-Testament plainly informs us, that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church. Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament? for it is not the Old-Testament alone, nor the New-Testament alone, but both together, that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice, &c.