A41334:242
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.
You grant an Apostate loseth his own baptism, p. 12.1 so his right is cut off; suppose the pro-parents be dead here is intercisio Christianismi as you quoted Calvin before, then I know not how this Apostates child can be Baptized, by any parental right: yet if this child should come to understanding, and there should be movings on the heart of it, and it should plead the Covenant of a Grandfather [I should not question to baptise it without respect to parents if it came to that.] Yet Sir, this will show there is a ⟨p. 36⟩great difference between the pro-parents right [if it can clearly be proved at all,] giving a title to baptism, and the immediate parents, for that may be cut off by the immediate parent justly, but the immediate parents title cannot be cut off.
You grant an Apostate loseth his owne baptisme, p. 12.1 so his right is cut off; suppose the pro-parents be dead here is intercisio Christianismi as you quoted Calvin before, then I know not how this Apostates child can be Baptized, by any parentall right: yet if this child should come to understanding, and there should be movings on the heart of it, and it should plead the Covenant of a Grandfather [I should not question to baptise it without respect to parents if it came to that.] Yet Sir, this will shew there is a ⟨p. 36⟩great difference betweene the pro-parents right [if it can clearely be proved at all,] giving a title to baptisme, and the immediate parents, for that may be cut off by the immediate parent justly, but the immediate parents title cannot be cut off.
- 1Yet you cannot see how a parents Apostasy can justly cut off his child. Diatr. p. 190.Yet you cannot see how a parents Apostacy can justly cut off his child. Diatr. p. 190.