A Sober Reply to the Sober Answer of Cawdrey, Title page – To the reader
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 Gonverſations, Scoffers at Godlineſs, and refuſe to ſubmit to Church-Diſcipline?
The Affirmative is not ſufficiently cleared.
ALSO, The Queſtion of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the Baptiſme of Infants, of Parents non-Confederate is cleared, and it may ſerve for an Anſwer to Mr. Cawdrey's Diatribe, with him upon the queſtion.
With A Poſt-Script to Reverend Mr. Blake.
By GI: FIRMIN Minister to the Church in Shalford.
JOB 6.24.
Teach me and I will hold my Tongue, and cauſe me to underſtand wherein I have erred.
Imprimatur JOS: CARYLL.
LONDON, Printed by J. G. and are to be ſold by Robert Littlebury at the Ʋnicorn in Little-Brittaine, 1653.
TO THE COƲRTEOƲS READER.
THe Searcher of hearts knoweth with how little pleaſure I appeare in this Controverſie, and what little content I have in refuſing to baptiſe the children of ſuch as the queſtion mentions: it would have become a man of a more holy ſpirit (as well as ſtronger parts) becauſe it pleades for purity of an Ordinance: but for an impure heart to plead for a pure Ordinance is a moſt loathſome thing. Had not ſuch perſons as the queſtion mentions, pleaded the examples of other Ministers as their ſtrongeſt ground, (telling me that other Miniſters laughed at me for my practiſe) and alſo publikely oppoſed me when I had dealt with them lovingly in private before, I had never appeared in print, which I did with an eager deſire of ſatisfaction, ſuppoſing that Miniſters would not laugh at others, unleſſe they had ſtrong grounds for their owne practiſe, which now I hoped to ſee: the practiſe being not mine alone (for then I had juſtly deſerved blame) but of many others before me who baptiſe not all.
As for Mr. Cawdrey who hath pleaſed to undertake the anſwer [for which I really thank him] I ſaw not his piece againſt Mr. Hooker till I had printed; but now I have read over that Diatribe and his anſwer to me, I confeſſe I am ſtill unſatisfied: yet ſmall matters would carry me to that which my owne will chooſeth moſt readily (God is my mitneſſe I have no ſiniſter reſpect in my practiſe) and which would be to my advantage in ſeverall respects if I might baptiſe all.
I was ſomewhat aſhamed to ſee ſo holy and able a mans as Mr. Hooker, to be joyned with me by Mr. Cawdrey: if the neereneſs of a holy man will ſhame one, what will the neereneſſe of a holy God doe? But ſince Providence hath done it, I did a little more ſeriouſly conſider of Mr. Hookers queſtion, though different from mine, and I hope … have ſo cleared Mr. Hooker out of himſelfe, that it will give content to the Reader. If I write againſt the Truth, Chriſt will, and I deſire he would blaſt it.
The Reader may perceive by the mentioning of that eminent man of God Mr. Daniel Roger…, of Wetherfield, that this Treatiſe was finiſhed before his Death, and I ſent this Reply to him to view over; he ſent me them back with this Letter.
Deare Couſin Firmin, I have ſent you both your Books againe, I have read them over and ſee nothing wherein you fail in anſwer to Mr. Cawdrey: But I confeſſe my thoughts are not ſo throughly heat, as yours are, to weigh all circumſtances, and paſſages of difference between you and him: its onelyonly the concernment of ſuch as are foreign. But as for further following Mr. Cawdrey, you doe well to tell him you will henceforth manum de tabula, and I pray hold your minde: if of reading Books, then ſurely of writing ſuch as theſe, there will be no end. I ſuppoſe your haſt of printing hath made you thinke long; I doubt not but you have ſufficiently proved, that your Arguments are not ſo weak, as your adverſary in his diſdainfull conceit hath imputed to you.
Yours, DANIEL ROGERS.