Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	lord_n	write_v	year_n	2,574	5	4.5017	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41329	The plea of the children of believing-parents for their interest in Abraham's covenant, their right to church-member-ship with their parents, and consequently their title to baptism. The cause of publishing this discourse after so many learned men have laboured in this province, is declared in the preface to the reader. By Giles Firmin.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1683 (1683)	Wing F960; ESTC R216413	52,287	130

THE PLEA OF THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVING-PARENTS for their Interest in Abraham 's Covenant their Right to Church-Member-ship with their Parents and consequently their Title to BAPTISM The Cause of publishing this Discourse after so many Learned Men have laboured in this Province is declared in the Preface to the Reader Baptizandos esse paruulos nemo dubitet quando nec illi hinc dubitant qui ex parte aliqua Contradicunt August de verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. It will surely be rewarded by Christ at the latter day as a work of more then ordinary Charity to have pleaded and maintained the Right of these poor Members of his who want a Tongue to speak for themselves Dr. Tho. Goodwin in his Preface to Mr. Cotton of Infant-Baptism By GILES FIRMIN 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children Vnclean but now they are Holy LONDON Printed for Tho. Simons at the Princes Arms in Ludgate-Street near Ludgate 1683. THE PREFACE TO THE READER IF the Reader demands a reason why after so many Books written by other Men far more able then my self upon this Subject that now I should appear my answer is ready I had as few thoughts of writing as any Man could have of reading any thing of mine upon the Subject But hearing of a Book against Infant-Baptism very much cryed up and observing some discourse about Anabaptism this Spring more in the Town then ever I heard before I sent to borrow the Book I took a brief view of it and the Book was sent for again To spend the Lord's-Day so much as one Exercise upon any Controversie I did much dislike it yet I thought I was bound to say something to it and did borrow a little time before I went on my other course About 〈◊〉 We●ks after I had done come● down an An●●aptist from London to a Town Seven 〈…〉 Miles distant from me and writes me ● Letter informing me That he was one that ●●d walk in Gospel-Communion with Col. Danvers sometimes he stiles him Esq Danvers then writes to me thus You have cast the Odium of Falshood and Fergery upon his Book to your Auditory If it was to deter your Hearers from reading his Book it doth demonstrate the badness of your Cause in that you are not willing it should be inspected If you design thereby to degrade the Gentleman as infamous though unknown you have therein greatly erred therefore I request you on the behalf of Col. Danvers that you be pleased to do him the common Justice as to publish to the World in Print what you have spoken in your more private Meetings by way of detection of his Forgery and not only to Print what you have traduced him with but also any other new things you have Preached that will lend any assistance to your Infant-Baptism that this Gentleman doth endeavour to throw down as a spurious thing several of your own Party have written against him but he with others have so answered them that they have set down silent under The Collonel hath a better Character than you give of him he hath a large Portion of this Worlds goods c. Thus he runs on in commendation of the Collonel and ends it in such a way that neither I nor others that read the Letter could understand his meaning As to this Letter the Reader may please to understand the Book which I borrowed had in the Title Page only H.D. I could not tell whither D. stood for Den whose name I had seen or Dell or Danvars of whose name only I had heard but never saw any thing of his but whoever was the Author I found fault with him 1. For his Falshood in the Historical part which if my Memory fails me not took up above half his Book 2ly His fraudulent dealing 3ly His raising a dust upon the Scriptures he quotes to trouble his Reader 4ly For his Logick But for any other Opinions or any thing concerning his Conversation I speak not one word for how could I when I knew nothing of him and only heard three times as I remember there was one Collonel Danvers an Anabaptist and that was all nor was I certain the Book was his It was never my intent to answer every particular in his Book partly because I would not spend the Lord's Day in Controversies and partly because Catechizing was the thing I intended being far more necessary so that I did grudge the time I spent about this Book out of which I only wrote the most material things and the Book was sent for away For the new things this Epistoler would have me publish Doth he mean new Scriptures or new Arguments or both 1st Why new since the old are not yet answered it is one thing to write against Men another to answer them 2ly Why new since my Author borrows so much old out of Mr. Tombes's Book which I look upon as instar omnium and is the only Anabaptist Book I have 3ly Why new since my Author opposes old Texts and I must take the part of a Respondent 4ly Why new my Epistoler should tell me what Controversies are there which have been handled so long by very able Divines as this hath been that he that comes last hath wrote all new 5ly To conclude then as to these new things I am forced to take up the old Texts because of my Author 's opposing them I do but touch other Texts and not insist upon them where others have been before me for other Mens Arguments I borrow but one from Mr. Baxter and tell you whose it is and improve it my way If I have hit upon other Mens notions it is unknown to me as I see I have upon Mr. Wills in answer to the old Britains but I had given the answer in the Congregation and wrote it in my Coppy before I saw Mr. Wills For his crying Victoria telling me our Divines sit silent under the Answers the Collonel and his Party have given them If this Epistoler read Mr. Baxter's Second Defence of Infants c. he may read a full answer to this and the reason of their silence p. 211. We may allow some Honour to a Collonel but why do they sit silent not because the Collonel or any other Anabaptist have put them to silence by Arguments from Scripture by Truth in History or Strength of Learning the contrary appears to judicious Readers but who will care for dealing with unreasonable Men They have other work to do of higher concernment Let the Anabaptists indulge themselves in their Opinions and Practises Redgness 24. August 1682. if they please I have performed that common Justice my Epistoler requires of me only for brevities sake I left out several things I would have added if this may do the Church of Christ any service I shall have my end and bless God G. FIRMIN THE PLEA OF THE CHILDREN OF Beleiving-Parents c. THE Right of the Children of Beleiving-Parents to Church-Membership with their Parents and consequently to

no question had all those Authors which my Author quotes that wrote before him if not many more which we have not And did not that learned pious Father understand them as well as my Author or any Anabaptist now in England And though he was no Christian himself yet was not he acquainted with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptists Now he saith the practice of Infant-baptism was so universal in the Church Austin l. 1. de peccat mer. renis c. 26. De baptis contra Denat l. 2. c. 7. l. 4. c. 24. that it could not but come from the Apostles Ecclesia semper habuit c. The Church ever heard it saith he Had not Austin spoke true there was one did watch him Pelagius who would have told him of it to purpose for that Practice stood in Pelagius's way but Pelagius did not deny it And whereas my Author doth not regard the Writers as to this Controversie that wrote after the Third Centuary I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three first Centuaries that have any thing in them to oppose the baptizing of the Infants of believing Parents but on the contrary some of them speak for it They that read the most ancient Writers next the Apostles may see the subject matter they treated upon did not give them any occasion to speak of Infant-Baptism they had other Points in hand As to the old Britains I was a little startled to read them brought against Infant-Baptism the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus I did read in him but I much question the truth of Fabianus because Mr. Fox giving us an account what Austin the Monk required of the British Bishops when he came into England tells us He required that they should Preach the Gospel to the English-men and that they should among themselves reform certain Rites and usages in their Church specially for keeping Eastertide and Baptizing after the manner of Rome Mr. Fox quotes several Authors besides Fabianus for this But that passage That they should give Christendom to children which Fabianus reports he doth not mention To Baptize after the manner of Rome to use their Ceremonies in Baptism and to baptize Children differ much I searched what Ceremonies were then used in Rome in Gregory's time and no wonder though the British Bishops rejected them But that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism is very false which I thus prove What year God first sent the Gospel into England the Learned do not agree there seem to be strong grounds to believe that it was before King Lucius sent to Eleutherius B. of Rome some say it was An. 156 others 169 others 170 others 180. The Contest between Austin and Pelagius was about 417 in the 63 year of Austins life as Bucolcerus gathers Pelagius denied Original Sin upon that denied Infant-Baptism as being superfluous not because Infants cannot believe which is the sole Argument of our Anabaptists Pelagius a learned man would have slighted such an Argument as this Austin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin from the universal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin they did baptize Infants Now this Infant-baptism saith Austin The Church ever had it ever held it De verb. Apo. Ser. 10. they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it keep with perseverance to the end Let Pelagius who was a Britain answer this Britany had received the Gospel 240 years before this Contest Pelagius knew the practice of his own Country and if it had been true that the old Britains did not baptize Infants as my Author saith why did not Pelagius Confute Austin charge him with falshood the Britains do not baptize Infants ergo it is not the practice of the Universal Church This being an Argument Austin did so urge and put so much stress upon it Pelagius would have removed it if he could But so far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Austin affirmed that Celestius a Pelagian in a Book which he put ●orth at Rome hath these words which Austin quotes out of it We do confess that Infants ought to be baptized for remission of sins according to the rule of the Vniversal Church and according to the sentence of the Gospel ●hough Caelestius do not mention the Text ●et by the following words we may plain●y see he means John 3.5 Except a man be ●orn again of Water and of the Spirit So that according to this Pelagian here is Scripture ground and the Rule of the Vniversal Church for Infant-Baptism So then for the old Britains they were not against Infant-baptism Now then for the Waldenses were I to charge any Opinion or practice upon other Churches I should first look to the Confession of their Faith then I may boldly charge them or not As we have a few Anabaptistical Writers in England should their Books a hundred years hence fall into the hands of Anabaptists in foreign parts should they then assirm that the Church of England or the Churches in England were Anabaptists would not this be false and take it as a wrong done unto us View the Confession of Faith of the Church of England of the Assembly of Divines of the Independents in England in New England all their Confessions declare for Infant-baptism Thus should my Author have done if he would deal honestly with the Waldenses produce their Confession of Faith and the Article in which they condemn Infant-baptism In the Articles which I have read over I find no such thing but that Baptism ought to be Administred only with pure Water without any mixture of hallowed Oyl The Ministers in the Vallies of Piemont in the year 1532 when the Anabaptists in Germany were risen up in the 17th Article of their Confession declare for Infant-baptism The Churches in those Vallies kept chaste to Christ from the Apostles times and were long before the Waldenses were named they were called Waldenses but this was a Nick-name put upon them by their Adversaries to make the World believe that their Religion was but a Novelty Morland p. 12. In the Confession of the Faith of the Waldenses in Bohemia so Vergerius three times calls them the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptism Anno 1535. As the Anabaptists rose up so the Churches drew up their Confessions against them The Ministers in their Preface to their Confession write That some malicious Spirits because they would cast all the Odium upon them that they could did reckon them amongst the Anabaptists But they answer Nos ex factione Anabaptistarum non esse nemini ignotum est All men know they were none of that Faction nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptists The Doctrine they confessed in their Churches they held and owned before the name of the Anabaptists was so much as heard of So that my Author hath plainly abused both the old Britains and the Waldenses