A26864:450
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
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.
§. 48.
R. B. I Will not now stand to enquire of the fitness or unfitness of your term, Restipulation, as here used. Varro useth Restipulari as being the same act as stipulari: and Civilians use it but rarely. In every stipulation they make two parties, the Stipulator (which is he that asks the question) and the Promiser (which is the answerer, that obligeth himself). Though rarely and unusually also, the Promiser be called Stipulator. But I suppose it is Responsio Promissoris, that you mean by Restipulation, and not another Interrogation whereby a double stipulation is made; supposing this your meaning I Reply: 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof, that this Restipulation is a thing following Baptism? This is too dilute and easy disputing. I took the contrary for an unquestionable truth. The best Interpreters judge, that Peter means here, the Answer whereby the Promiser in Baptism did solemnly oblige himself: which was to two Questions. Credis in Patrem, filium & spiritum sanctum? Credo. Abrenuncias Diabolum, mundum & Carnem? Abrenuncio. And who knoweth not that these went before the application of the water? (of which more anon.) Doth not mutual consent expressed go before the sealing of the Covenant? Doth Christ bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost; and would you have us do this before they profess their consent? shall we Baptize them first, and ask them whether they believe and consent after?
R. B. I Will not now stand to enquire of the fitness or unfitness of your term, Restipulation, as here used. Varro useth Restipulari as being the same act as stipulari: and Civilians use it but rarely. In every stipulation they make two parties, the Stipulator (which is he that asks the question) and the Promiser (which is the answerer, that obligeth himself). Though rarely and unusually also, the Promiser be called Stipulator. But I suppose it is Responsio Promissoris, that you mean by Restipulation, and not another Interogation whereby a double stipulation is made; supposing this your meaning I Reply: 1. Why did you not give us one word for proof, that this Restipulation is a thing following Baptism? This is too dilute and easie disputing. I took the contrary for an unquestionable truth. The best Interpreters judge, that Peter means here, the Answer whereby the Promiser in Baptism did solemnly oblige himself: which was to two Questions. Credis in Patrem, filium & spiritum sanctum? Credo. Abrenuncias Diabolum, mundum & Carnem? Abrenuncio. And who knoweth not that these went before the application of the water? (of which more anon.) Doth not mutual consent expressed go before the sealing of the Covenant? Doth Christ bid us Baptize men into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost; and would you have us do this before they profess their consent? shall we Baptize them first, and ask them whether they believe and consent after?