A41334:379
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 which I say, 1. That Text speaks of the times under the Gospel, and it cannot be accomplished under the Old Testament, as our Annotations make it clear, it speaks of a time when circumcision is out of date.
To which I say, 1. That Text speakes of the times under the Gospell, and it cannot be accomplished under the Old Testament, as our Annotations make it cleare, it speakes of a time when circumcision is out of date.
2. Circumcision was never committed to the Priests as now Baptism ⟨p. 52⟩to the Ministers, therefore there was no blame to them due for that point.
2. Circumcision was never committed to the Priests as now Baptisme ⟨p. 52⟩to the Ministers, therefore there was no blame to them due for that point.
3. Since it respects the Gospel, it concerns those who practise so as if by Sanctuary were meant only the Lords Supper, to prove that there, where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons, he means only admission to the Lords Supper, those who interpret must prove. It should seem very fair, that Sanctuary is more then Lords Supper, I suppose those who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Passover in old time.
3. Since it respects the Gospell, it concerns those who practise so as if by Sanctuary were meant onely the Lords Supper, to prove that there, where the Priests are blamed for bringing into the Sanctuary such persons, he meanes onely admission to the Lords Supper, those who interpret must prove. It should seeme very faire, that Sauctuary is more then Lords Supper, I suppose those who were brought into the Sanctuary might come to the Passeover in old time.