A41334:120
A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious…
A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grossly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church discipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptism of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...
London: printed by J.G., 1653
A SOBER REPLY TO A SOBER ANSWER, &c.A SOBER REPLY TO A SOBER ANSVVER, &c.
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.
For Submitting to Church-Discipline, 1though I know some few Erastians did deny it, yet the bulk of Christians would never question it, being so plain; but however you find afterward that I speak of such as are ⟨p. 17⟩convinced of it (which was my case) but because I did not put it into the question (though I express it afterwards) you take advantage against me p. 18, 19, 20.25. no less then sour times to make it serve for an answer torn. Well Sir, I perceive your mind is not to make any favourable construction, though you have my mind cleared in another place, only you lye on the catch.
For Submitting to Church-Discipline, 1though I know some few Erastins did deny it, yet the bulke of Christians would never question it, being so plaine; but however you finde afterward that I speake of such as are ⟨p. 17⟩convinced of it (which was my case) but because I did not put it into the question (though I expresse it afterwards) you take advantage against me p. 18, 19, 20.25. no lesse then soure times to make it serve for an answer torne. Well Sir, I perceive your minde is not to make any favourable construction, though you have my minde cleared in another place, onely you lye on the catch.
- 1Page 2.
Come on then Sir, since this is your spirit, let us see whether this will give you such an advantage: the question is, whether Ministers are bound to baptize Children of Parents grossly ignorant, &c. Yes, saith Mr. C. the Parents are Church-members, and though notoriously scandalous they are Members to all Ordinances, while they are tolerated: tolerated say I, what mean you by that? you answer, the Church hath not proceeded to Censure and Excommunicate, for till excommunicated they are Church-members [yea and then also by your Doctrine] but then say I, for excommunication, I know no such thing, nor any Church-discipline: you say there are godly ones not convinced of this Ordinance, and if godly ones, then not wicked ones, sure enough they may as well renounce it: thus Discipline is rejected by all: so then non-excommunication, non-censuring doth not help one whit, but their gross ignorance, &c. is sufficient for me, for Excommunication there is no such thing, so my arguments stand the stronger, unless there be a way to help by the pro-parent and Adoption, which are your notions.