A41334:137
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.
But if a man be first a Member of the Catholic Church, and his being a Member of this particular Church, depends upon that, then I see no reasons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second, yet his membership to the Catholic Church, which is first and independent upon this, still remains; and you do in excommunication but cast him into, that state he was in before he joined to you; so that still he is a Member of the Catholic Church, and may demand ordinances elsewhere. Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member, then they follow: hence their Act depends on this: if depend, then not first.
But if a man be first a Member of the Catholique Church, and his being a Member of this particular Church, depends upon that, then I see no reasons for though you have cast him out of your particular Church which is second, yet his membership to the Catholique Church, which is first and independent upon this, still remaines; and you doe in excommunication but cast him into, that state he was in before he joyned to you; so that still he is a Member of the Catholique Church, and may demand ordinances elsewhere. Other Churches deny not communion before the particular doth of which he is a Member, then they follow: hence their Act depefids on this: if depend, then not first.
2. This seems a little odd to me, a man is a Member of the Catholic Church only: thence he will require Baptism of this Church, of another Church he will require the Lords Supper, in another there he will bear, to he may go to all Churches, in the world (if he could) and demand any Ordinances, yet Member of no particular Church; so let this man walk as disorderly as he will (as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Member ⟨p. 20⟩will allow a man to be bad enough) in this Town or another Town, he have owned no particular Church, only the Catholic, what hath this particular Church to do to meddle with him more then any other? we must have Catholic Church-Officers to cast him out, who are such, not only actu primo but actu secundo, which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unless he be Called to it, but to be sure this man will never call you to it, who then can give you a Call, so that this man cannot come to be reformed, and yet he may go up and down to any Church? I am a Christian, therefore give me the Ordinances, excommunicated I am not, for none can excommunicate him unless all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out.