A41334:343
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.
Therefore I reply, if the argument proceeds so strongly against the parents themselves, then much more against the children, for If may self who must have title first for my self, and then for my child, ought to be denied it, then much more my child, whose title is mine, and depends wholly upon me for it: for this I conceive to be a sound truth, if a person have ten or twenty children, and these be baptised because Christians, born of such a parent, then I do twenty times justify that the parent from whom ⟨p. 48⟩these children proceed, have right and title to Baptism. So that which you say is not a sound assertion, p. 24. (which how it came under the third argument I know not, for it belongs to the first,) viz. If I can give the child one Seal of the Covenant by virtue of the parent, I will give the parent the other, I think is a very sound assertion, it never troubled me as yet. But what makes it so? say you, I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper, and yet baptise his child, because more is required of the one then the other.
Therefore I reply, if the argument proceeds so strongly against the parents themselves, then much more against the children, for If may selfe who must have title first for my selfe, and then for my child, ought to be denyed it, then much more my child, whose title is mine, and depends wholly upon me for it: for this I conceive to be a sound truth, if a person have ten or twenty children, and these be baptised because Christians, born of such a parent, then I doe twenty times justifie that the parent from whom ⟨p. 48⟩these children proceed, have right and title to Baptisme. So that which you say is not a sound assertion, p. 24. (which how it came under the third argument I know not, for it belongs to the first,) viz. If I can give the child one Seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent, I will give the parent the other, I think is a very sound assertion, it never troubled me as yet. But what makes it so? say you, I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper, and yet baptise his child, because more is required of the one then the other.