A41334:278
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 make Christ a Political head to one under Satan's Kingdom, seems very strange.
To make Christ a Politicall head to one under Satans Kingdome, seemes very strange.
4. Excommunication is the rendering of a man as a Heathen to the Church, Mat. 18. we do not differ here, but agree that Excommunication is meant here what ever the Erastians *say.
4. Excommunication is the rendering of a man as a Heathen to the Church, Mat. 18. we doe not differ here, but agree that Excommunication is meant here what ever the Erastians *say.
- *Here let me have leave to put in a word. The Erastians expound this of civill injuries, or personal civill trespasses only, and will prove it by comparing of Luke 17.3, 4. with this; his Argument being, Because it is such a trespass as a brother may forgive: Mr. Gillespy bestows pains here, and to good purpose; but let it be supposed the Texts run parallel, which M Gillespy thinks not. 1. That Luke 17. saith, that a brother may forgive such a trespass, as it were better a millstone were •angedi about his neck who offers it. But 2, we find in 2 Cor. 27.10. that Paul forgave, and the Church of Corinth forgave, what, a trespass done against them? No sure, the incestuous persons act was no evil trespass against Paul nor the Church, yet they forgive. If then they can forgive, why may not a private brother also forgive? Thus it is supposed, that the scandal which is here given, & for which the private brother dealeth with the offender privately, is but a private scandal, (for if it be public, this way of dealing ceaseth) if then this private brother dealing with the offender finds the man to acknowledge his sin, and repent, why may not he be said to forgive him also? [as in case it had been a public fact and cast out, upon his repentance the Church forgive] so that now he embraceth him in his heart again, proceeds not to call any other to deal with him, nor to tell it to the Church, but the scandal is buried, forgiven, forgotten, Ecclesiasticè: I know no absurdity in this, and so the forgiveness doth not prove it to be a civill trespass only.