A41334:332
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.
Such as the question mentions, dejure ought, and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper, Ergo, ought also to be excluded from their Infants Baptism.
Such as the question mentions, dejure ought, and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper, Ergo, ought also to be excluded from their Infants Baptisme.
This you say you deny with all the proofs of is, the Proof is as weak as the ⟨p. 47⟩consequence, viz. Because Baptism seals to the same Govenan•, as the Lords Supper doth. Ergo, if excluded from one Seal, then from the other.
This you say you deny with all the proofes of is, the Proofe is as weake as the ⟨p. 47⟩consequence, viz. Because Baptisme seales to the same Govenan•, as the Lords Supper doth. Ergo, if excluded from one Seale, then from the other.
The proof again is like to the former, viz. Because such persons appear pear not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong, having no right in those privileges; therefore Baptism signifying and sealing as great privileges as the Lords Supper, they cannot convey a title unto that Seal for their children, but ought to be excluded.
The proof againe is like to the formar, viz. Because such persons appeare peare not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong, having no right in those priviledges; therefore Baptisme signifying and fealing as great priviledges as the Lords Supper, they cannot convey a title unto that Seale for their children, but ought to be excluded.