A41334:177
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.
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.
Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicite put into the question: and afterwards [the same page] when Mr. Hooker shewes why he inclines to the negative, being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant: he doth not say explicite Church-covenant. Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words, that is,1 indeed the necessity of an explicite Covenant, and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus: [Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicite with a particular visible Church, may be baptized?] This is none of Master Hooker's question.
- 1Diatr. 185.
Hence first, those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawn up in his Diatr. with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Members of our Churches here in England, they all labour with the disease called, Ignoratio Elenthi, for he hath changed the question, and doth not speak ad idem.
Hence first, those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawne up in his Diatr. with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Membe•s of our Churches here in England, they all labour with the disease called, Ignoratio Elenthi, for he hath changed the question, and doth not speake ad idem.