A41334:389
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 this you answer, it was a new Ordinance, in which Repentance was required in the first parents. 1. But what then? though new, it was but a Seal to the same Covenant they were in before, and they being visibly under the same Covenant, why should more be required of them, if there were not some difference between the administrations of these Ordinances? 2. But was not Repentance required in Circumcision? did not Circumcision note the cutting off the Old Man? 1and is that done without Repentance? if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptism, you will confirm me the more, and weaken the arguing from Circumcision to Baptism, very much in my apprehension.
To this you answer, it was a new Ordinance, in which Repentance was required in the first parents. 1. But what then? though new, it was but a Seale to the same Covenant they were in before, and they being visibly under the same Covenant, why should more be required of them, if there were not some difference between the administrations of these Ordinances? 2. But was not Repentance required in Circumcision? did not Circumcision note the cutting off the Old Man? 1and is that done without Repentance? if repentance were not required there as well as in Baptisme, you wi•l confirme me the more, and weaken the arguing from Circumcision to Baptisme, very much in my apprehension.
- 12 Col. ix.
6. This made me to think so, because when they fell to their foul Apostle•, yet they Circumcised: I pray Sir speak our plainly, if one of your Members should sacrifice his children to Mole•b, worship those vile and unclean Gods, which they did, would you baptise his child without any more ado?