A41334:175
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.
To return to his question: Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it:
To returne to his question: Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it:
1. By persons non-Confederate, he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitly, but if they be members of true Churches, walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicit Covenant, but implicit, Mr. Hooker doth not look on these as falling under his question, so have nothing to do with such now. This is most clear by what I have alleged out of him.
1. By persons non-Confederate, he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitely, but if they be members of true Churches, walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicite Covenant, but implicite, Mr. Hooker doth not looke on these as falling under his question, so have nothing to doe with such now. This is most cleare by what I have alledged out of him.
Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicit put into the question: and afterwards [the same page] when Mr. Hooker shows why he inclines to the negative, being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant: he doth not say explicit Church-covenant. Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words, that is,1 indeed the necessity of an explicit Covenant, and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus: [Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicit with a particular visible Church, may be baptized?] This is none of Master Hooker's question.