Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	know_v	speak_v	write_v	2,682	5	5.1468	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85311	The answer of Giles Firmin, to the vain and unprofitable question put to him, and charged upon him by Mr. Grantham, in his book, entituled, The infants advocate : viz. whether the greatest part of dying infants shall be damned? : Which advocate, while he shuts all infants out of the visible church, and denies them baptism, opens heaven to all dying infants, justifying those of his party, who admit them all as he doth, into Heaven without regeneration.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Grantham, Thomas, d. 1664. Infants advocate.	1689 (1689)	Wing F954A; ESTC S122452	14,558	22

I never spake it I never wrote it I never thought it It was never the Question Those which I treated of were Quest I. Whether God Regenerates any Infants 2. Whether God Circumcise the Hearts of any Infants Which your Disciple said true come both to one Both which were denied by two of your Sect and the latter denied by your self * Against Mr. Petto p. 51. I proved if Infants be Saved they must be Regenerated 3 Joh. 3. They must be Sanctified Heaven is an Inheritance only for Sanctified Persons 20 Act. 32. and 26 chap. 18. They must be made meet for it 1 Col. 12. I am sure they are not meet for it by Nature But whether God Regenerates all Infants or the greater or the lesser part of Infants I wrote not one word How should I know what God hath not revealed 29 Deut. 29. How could you then charge such a Doctrine upon me in your Title-page In the Conclusion of your Book you tell your Reader Mr. Firmin seems displeased at the multitude which shall be saved if my Opinion be true all dying Infants are saved c. I shall answer you very briefly That you might shew your self to be a Learned Man in the Arminian Controversie which I gave you no occasion to meddle with you tell me Presump p. 8. This strange Doctrine of damning the greatest part of the World and that before the World was makes God the Author of all sin c. To the first part I only answered by Christ's words 7 Matth. 14. As for Huberus and Caelius Secundus Curio they were of your side But mark your own words Mr. Grantham the damning of the greatest part of the World not the greatest part of Infants I hope the World and Infants are not the same then as yet you cannot fasten this Cruel Doctrine upon me As for the words of Christ 7 Matth. 14. Few find it you answer me quoting 2 Pet. 3.9 c. That the far greater part will despise the Riches of God's goodness c. But I say if they do so finally they are damned and this is strange Doctrine with you As for Infants say you they are in no danger by this Text they may be you should say they are not may be all saved and so the number of the saved be much greater by them For none of them walk in the broad way therefore they must needs go the way which lead to Life But I pray is the number of them that are saved so much greater by them that the words of Christ Few find it are not true Else you do not take of my Answer You Confute not me but our Lord the words are his not mine As for your proof David saith 58 Psal 3. The wicked are estranged from the Womb they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies The Apostle tells us 1 John 5.19 The whole World i. e. all that are not born of God lieth in wickedness Infants are a part of the World tho' not the whole World. The corrupt Nature in them do biass and incline them to walk in the Broad Way not in the Narrow Way Betimes we see their little Feet i.e. their Words and Actions stepping in the Broad Way So that our Lord's Words may be true tho' the greater part of Infants be saved As for the Hellish Torments you speak of so much Bellarmin * Tom. 4. p. 144. ● Militissima omnium poena Aug. tells the Pelagians who are your Friends and Catharinus allow Infants Eternal Life and Natural Blessedness without any pain other Opinions you may read in him if you please But where the Scripture is silent why should we speak Having named Pelagius and charging you in my Answer to your Book with Pelagianisin I will here consider your Outcry against me p. 28. where you tell me what you have written in your Book which you call Christianisinus Primitivus I never saw any of your Book nor did I ever hear of your Name till I saw your Book against my self there I found you did own Peccatum Originans but not Originatum So I told you But for all your great Words in that Page I still say Mr. Grantham is a Man very corrupt in the Doctrine of Original Sin or he must grosly contradict himself For First Against Mr. Pet. p. 27. Twice in one Page you tell us Infants are not guilty of any Sin of their own Then they have no Sin of their own It is impossible to part Sin and Guilt tho' God pardon the Punishment If Infants have no Sin of their own Circumcision was Instituted before Christ 1923. Bucolc then the Administration of Circumcision to Infants of eight days old almost two thousand years was a vain Administration In a Sacrament there is the Sign and the thing signified What was signified in Circumcision 10 Deut. 16.30 Deut. 6.4 Jer. 4. 9 Jer. 26. tells us the Vncircumcision of our Flesh is joyned with our Estate dead in Sin 2 Col. 13. But if Infants have no Sinof their own then the thing signified was not there so that it was no Sacrament but the Administration of a Lye according to your Doctrine Secondly Ibid. p. 11. You tell us They need not any Laws to be written in their Hearts during Infancy Answ Infants are born either with that Image in which God Created Man or not If they be born with it then they never fell from God and so have no need of Christ If not so born then there is a Privation of that Righteousness which ought to be and a Position as in a Disease of that Vnrighteousness and Evil which ought not to be This Image is not restored but in Regeneration in which the Law is written in the Heart Thirdly Ibid. p. 13. You tell us Infants are innocent Answ Then they never fell from God. You could stich Innocency and Pardon together in your former Book now you stitch Innocency and Sin together You quote Dr. Taylor to justifie you But he does not stitch Innocency and Pardon together However I read Dr. Taylor 's words but he was neither a Prophet nor Apostle a very godly Man Mr. Anthony Burgess and as learned a Man as himself who traced him in his Writings gives this Character of him He is not meerly Pelagian Papist Arminian or Socinian but an Hotch-potch of all Like a Second Julian in triumphing Language with much boldness he hath decryed Original Sin as if it were but a Non Ens. Thus he We know sin in one sence is not Ens * As Ens convertitur cum Re. and that this Learned Man knew well Dr. Taylor 's Authority and yours are both alike to me Fourthly I suspect you from your Description of Original Sin. p. 23. p. 28. In both your Books you tell us Original Sin is that came Upon all even Infants This word Vpon I do not understand Paul calls it Indwelling Sin 7 Rom. 17.20 I was

Ephes 14. Thirdly That there is nothing unclean in it self 14 Rom. 14. I say to declare my Faith in these Truths I would now eat a Blood-Pudding in the face of Mr. Grantham or any Jew provided it be prepared S. A. that is saith Mr. Grantham Sir Anabaptist No indeed Sir you are as much mistaken now as when you told us Transubstantiation was never heard of till it was invented in the Council of Trent S. A. that is Secundum Anteum * As Physitians in their Bills let the Bill be prepared S. A. If a good Cook hath the preparing of them else I care not for them But I thank you for the sport you have made us by interpreting S. A. For the rest of your Preface I told you if there were any false Stories blame not me they came from your own Party boasting of you very much As since you wrote against me a Friend of mine being at London and discoursing with one of your Tribe about disputing We said he will set a Taylor to Dispute with him That I see this Taylor is a great Man in the Anabaptists Opinion and in his own too else he would not have carried himself so proudly in the Arminian Controversie when I gave him no occasion to meddle with it It being a Controversie in which Pious and very Learned Men other manner of Men than He and I am have laboured very much that this Man should jump off his Taylorsshop-board and after some Study take the Doctors Chair as if he were the Man to determine those Questions when I see he is but a Smatterer and knows not the depth of that Controversie Upon this ground with the former finding him a Scoffer and one as I understand that denies Communion with all Churches tho' nothing which is Human is imposed but dipt Churches I did not treat him with that Respect as I have done other Men. To one of his Disciples that sows the same Darnel in these parts which he doth elsewhere I mentioned three Pastors and Churches I am sure for Holiness and Abilities there are none such among the Anabaptists no nor under the Sun yet he forsooth would have no Communion with them they were not Dipt I desire no acquaintance with such For my own part I have held Communion in the Holy Supper and do daily in my Prayers remember one Anabaptist whom I found sound in other Points and walking humbly so that certainly I am no Despiser of them who Worship God according to his Will as you charge me to be † Page 19. and so would prove me not to do the Works of Abraham If Re baptizing were Worship according to his Will which I deny As for Baptizing by Dipping of those who were never Baptized I am not against it if Administred by one Qualified Called and Ordained according to the Gospel This Charge is as true as divers others I meet with in your Book out of which I will only take the most material Things and let your other Impertinencies alone 16 Decemb. 1688. The Servant of the Seed of Believers G. FIRMIN THE ANSWER TO HIS Vain Question AS for the Two Questions I propounded to the Anabaptists you tell me You have answered them and so you have done with them But others say You have answered nothing And I say If they cannot be answered better than you have done we will go on to Baptize the Infants of Believing Parents without any scruple Now you give me Two other Questions I. Quest Whether God required Baptism or any other Rite to be necessary to the Salvation of Infants Answ What need this Question since I told you * Plea p. 20. I do not think Baptism to be absolutely necessary either for Infants or Adult Persons as if without it they could not be saved I named the Scripture to prove it I gave the Opinion of our Protestants I add now some of the Papists even Lumbard † L. 4. Dist 4. himself is of the same Judgment The same was and is my Opinion concerning Circumcision which made me wonder you should so often tell your Reader twice in one pag. 21. where you tell me You admire my great blindness that I have said If Isaac had died before he had been eight days old he had not been saved An abominable falshood I never had such a thought You say pag. 6. You have done me no wrong in shewing my Opinion Yes Mr. Grantham as much wrong as Falshood can do Truth If your Choler have done boiling the Fumes whereof troubled your sight rub your Eyes and put on your Spectacles and read the former Paragraphs upon which those words about Isaac depend and you will find this Sence I was speaking of the Grace of God in making that Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and Sealing it Suppose I said it were true which you say That all dying Infants are saved yet certainly there is a Blessing in this Covenant that God makes and Seals with Isaac said I for God does not make Covenants in vain But how does this prove what you charge me with I doubt not but as God saved Infants before Circumcision was Instituted so he did after without it But tho' there be no such absolute necessity as I said before yet when God Institutes any Ordinance there is a necessity lies upon us to observe his Institution reverently and I do believe God doth convey Grace by them For as I said concerning Circumcision it had Spiritual Ends God strictly chargeth this Ordinance to be administred to Infants of eight days old which could not Co-work with him in the Administration of it then he himself must do it else the Spiritual Ends could not be attained there is only a sign but not the thing signified in any one Infant so the Ordinance is but in vain which do not consist with the Wisdom Grace and Holiness of God. 1. As it was in Circumcision so in Baptism which succeed in the room of it Though Circumcision and Baptism are nothing without the Spirit yet with the Spirit Baptism is not inferiour to Circumcision He did work then and doth work now when and where he pleaseth with it II. Quest Whether the greatest part of dying Infants shall be Damned Answ A very Vain Question Take your Answer from Bellarmin in my Title-Page But further in your First Book p. 7. you charge some Independents and Presbyterians with this cruel Doctrine but you name none In this you charge only Presbyterians and any Man who reads your Title-Page will conclude that I am a Presbyterian and that I own that Cruel Dectrine I answer I hold Communion both with Independents and Presbyterians but that I am a Presbyterian is more then I knew before or know now As to the Opinion you charge me with Mr. Grantham if you be a Man of Truth and would not justly be charged with a Lye name the Page in my Book where I have written any such thing Sure I am

Faith and Repentance more then all other Graces I cannot tell You tell me pag. 25. Infants have no Object of Faith propounded to them therefore they cannot have Faith seminally Answ Nor is there an Object of Love propounded to them God is the Object of our Faith and Love so is Christ 14 Joh. 1. But God is not propounded an Object of Faith and Love to Infants therefore Infants are saved without any Seminal Faith in or Love to God as much as to say without any Grace at all I shall add but this If there be no Seeds of Repentance and Faith in Christ in the Regeneration of Infants then the Righteousness the Sacrifice Blood of Christ with all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are imputed and applyed to persons where are only the Seeds of the Graces of the Covenant of Works which no Man shall make me believe That the Lord doth Regenerate Infants saved I doubt not but how he doth it neither Man nor Angel can tell But you tell your Reader p. 24. I vainly pretend to know it I had been a vain Man indeed had I pretended to it But Mr. Grantham if you be a Man of Truth name the page as I I do always when I charge you in my Book where your Reader may find what you tell him of me I can name the page 74 where I have spoken the contrary as expresly as a Man can speak You tell your Reader p. 31. of some old Professors that have been Teachers of others and yet have not learned Civility or Honesty in treating those who differ from them in Opinion Who is more guilty of this then Mr. Grantham how many Falshoods have you charged me with in this Pamphlet I resolve to meddle no more with Anabaptists for your sake not because I find any strength in you but for your charging such things upon me which I never spake or have expresly spoken the contrary Because I used this Argument for the necessity of Childrens Regeneration All the Members of the Kingdom of Heaven are holy But Infants are Members of the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo they are holy But they are not holy by Birth it is by Regeneration You tell me p. 13. Here I think you have given your Cause its Deaths-blow What is become of the Birth-Priviledge so much gloried in by Mr. Baxter and others Answ Do you think so Mr. Grantham I do not think I have given it the least wound Did Mr. Baxter or others of our Divines ever say Children are inherently holy by Birth You see I distinguish between Birth-holiness and Regeneration Did the Apostle when he tells the believing Corinthians 1 Cor. 7.14 That their Children were Saints mean they were inherently holy by Birth No sure he meant no more then as the Children under Abraham's Covenant were called holy 7 Deut. 6. and 14 Deut. 2. 9 Ezra 2. That Holiness gave them a Title to Church-Membership and the Seal of the Covenant then so it do now Only a word to the Reason why you and your Disciple deny Children can have any Seminal Faith or Regeneration because these come by the Word preached 10 Rom. 17. 1 Pet. 1.23 But Infants can neither understand it nor read it Thus you have tyed up the Holy One to one instrument But I pray are all that are born Deaf damned They can neither hear read nor understand the word Verily if God can Regenerate those who are born Deaf he can Infants without hearing or reading the Word So he did before in Circumcision where he pleased through the word of his Covenant I will be their God and so he doth now in Baptism when and where he pleaseth Sanctification and Salvation being given to Baptism as an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit 3 Tit. 5. 1 Pet. 3.21 5 Ephes 26. besides that controverted Text 3 Joh. 5. which the Anabaptists who put so much in Dipping may well understand of Baptism That you might make your Reader know what a pitiful Dispurant I am you tell him two faults I am guilty of in my Logick p. 10. My Argument was this They who are Regenerated have Faith and Repentance But all Infants saved are Regenerated Ergo they have Faith and Repentaece My first fault is this Your Major should have been universal say you And is it not universal It is not special for it is neither particular nor proper then it must be universal It is Axioma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Grantham then it must be universal For here praedicatum reciprocatur cum subjecto ita ut ex praedicato fieri possit subjectum As in this proposition Homo est animal rationale Animal rationale est Homo So here they that have the whole have the parts and they who have the parts have the whole A Proposition may be universal in the form of it tho' it be not true but this is both universal and true till you can prove your two Regenerations 2. The second fault is Ignoratio Elenchi Say you so Mr. Grantham What was the Question I pray Was it not whether Infants saved had Faith and Repentance Did I not stick to the question and conclude it affirmatively from your own Disciple's Doctrine and Concessions that they are the two parts of Regeneration but that they were Regenerated I proved Do you Mr. Grantham understand what Ignoratio Elenchi is You tell your Reader p. 12. speaking of me It is his manner to confound his Discourses with Diversities I challenge you Mr. Grantham or any of your Sect to shew me where once I have stated a Question that in my Discourse I depart from it to another thing diverse from it I did not so in this place For the Question was Whether Seeds do not go before Fruits Principles before Actions So God sow the Seeds of Grace infuse Divine Principles into Infants that are saved tho' they die before they come to act I mentioned Peter 1 Joh 3.9 but I did not argue thus Peter had a Seed therefore he could not fall totally and finally that had been another Question indeed but I said tho' Peter did fall yet there was a Seed in him I aimed only at the word Seed of which I was discoursing as a word being used in Scripture To my fourth Argument I used page 15. viz. If all dying Infants are justified and saved without Regeneration then there are millions in Heaven in whom the Spirit of God as the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity had nothing to do in their Salvation You give two Answers the first very absurd only I resolved to be short else I would have shewn it Your second is this All these dying Infants for whom Christ shed his precious Blood have sufficient assistance from the Spirit in the business of their Salvation But he shed for all The Major you prove thus They do not resist the Holy Ghost I answer The work of the Spirit in the business of their Salvation is