A41334:360
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.
Fourthly, the ground of the sealing of the Covenant, is because the §4person appears to be in Covenant, not because it was first sealed to another. The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent, as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised, if in the Covenant, ⟨p. 50⟩then (say you) the child is a Church-member: then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title. Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. [If the Parents sin did annul his own Baptism, it were a question whether it did not hinder his child's Baptism] which also implies it is the Parents Baptism that is the cause of his child's Baptism] comes to nothing.
Fourthly, the ground of the sealing of the Covenant, is because the §4person appeares to be in Covenant, not because it was first sealed to another. The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent, as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised, if in the Covenant, ⟨p. 50⟩then (say you) the child is a Church-member: then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title. Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. [If the Parents sin did annull his own Baptisme, it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme] which also implies it is the Parents Baptisme that is the cause of his childes Baptisme] comes to nothing.
Your second answer, is from none of my Principles.