A41334:172
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.
Whether persons non confederate,1 and so (in our sense not Members of the Church) do entitle their children to the seat of Baptism, being one of the privileges of the Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship?
Whether persons non confederate,1 and so (in our sense not Members of the Church) doe entitle their children to the seate of Baptisme, being one of the priviledges of the Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship?
- 1Survey part 3. pag. 11, 12.
You make very great use of these words, that persons non. Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church: now Sir, let me move one question, Whether only persons that are in explicit Confederacy, are to be esteemed in M Hookers sense Members of a Church? if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary, as he hath most fully, pag. 47, 48. of his first part, and in Preface, pag. 11. where he saith expressly, The Faithful Congregations in England are true Churches, then that cannot be M. Hooker's sense. In pag. 47, 48. he shows how the Covenant is acted after a double manner, Explicitly, and Implicitly, and there shows how it is acted in the Churches of England. Then adds,
You make very great use of these words, that persons non. Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church: now Sir, let me move one question, Whether only persons that are in explicite Consederacy, are to be esteemed in M Hookers sense Members of a Church? if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary, as he hath most fully, pag. 47, 48. of his first part, and in Preface, pag. 11. where he saith expresly, The Faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches, then that cannot be M. Hokers sense. In pag. 47, 48. he shewes how the Covenant is acted after a double manner, Explicitely, and Implicitely, and there shewes how it is acted in the Churches of England. Then adds,