A41334:22
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.
M. Cawdry condemns my practise,1 and tells the World I have confuted my Opinion and my Practise, and while I go about to prove the Nega•••e, I have concluded the Affirmative: and that is by one sentence which I have affirmed, viz. So long as wicked persons are tolerated they may challenge, &c. [what my sentence is I shall presently give it you plainly.] This sentence (saith he) confutes (as it contradicts) both his Question and his Practice, and it unto gives us an answer to all his Arguments. You have said enough; He saith in the same Page that I have three times at least affirmed that Proposition: what I have affirmed I will own, there is a fourth place where I have said the same words in P. 41. 4. 2. (it should be, the numbers are false printed) That such persons as are ignorant and scandalous, if they be owned for Church members, they have a remote right to Baptism, […] and to the Lords Supper, you must not deny it, by these words, you must not deny it; I suppose you do not understand me, you must not deny such the Lords Supper, that is far from my thoughts, for then I should condemn our old holy Divines and others now, who alone will keep back, it may be half their Parish from the Lords Supper, I condemn them not at all, but think they have done well,2 though you scarce think so by your passage. P. 21. that then is the meaning of it, You must not deny it, but they have a Remote Right to the one as well as to the other. But I suppose you well understood ⟨p. 3⟩my mind, that I […] no more there there th•••in the s••••• pla•••, which now I shall consider in may Book, […] there you say I have it t••ies, once from the […] giving of title to Circumcision so long as Church members. For the Jews I shall say this once for all: if you can prove unto me that the grounds of the Jews administering Circumcision were only the same and no other of our administering Baptism, then I shall be very much swayed with Arguments you draw from them:
M. Cawdry condemns my practise,