A41334:347
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.
2. You should have proved that less is to be required of those who do give them title to their Baptism, then for themselves to the Lords Suppe•.
2. You should have proved that lesse is to be required of those who doe give them title to their Baptisme, then for themselves to the Lords Suppe•.
1So that whereas you say, all my false consequences are grounded upon my first (false) premised supposition, viz. [That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent] (the word next (by your favour) was not there put in,2,) so I say your answer to this argument, runs upon a false supposition, viz. that children are baptized by virtue of a title distinct from their parents, If you can prove that, viz. that the parent requires baptism for himself by one title, and the child by another title distinct from his, then your answer will be strong; else it is as weak and weaker then the argument, which you so much slight: for the rest of your answer, I have spoken to it before, and therefore repeat nothing for the examples of Scripture or History: will you do nothing but what you have example for? is not argument drawn from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me, though there be not examples set down? For the personal default I have spoken to it before.
1So that whereas you say, all my false consequences are grounded upon my first (false) premised supposition, viz. [That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent] (the word next (by your favour) was not there put in,2,) so I say your answer to this argument, runs upon a false supposition, viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title distinct from their parents, If you can prove that, viz. that the parent requires baptisme for himselfe by one title, and the child by another title distinct from his, then your answer will be strong; else it is as weake and weaker then the argument, which you so much slight: for the rest of your answer, I have spoken to it before, and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History: will you doe nothing but what you have example for? is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me, though there be not examples set downe? For the personall default I have spoken to it before.