Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	faith_n	save_v	work_n	13,213	5	6.1688	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

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

conceived in sin 51 Psal 5. It may have some truth in respect of Adam's Sin by which Death passed upon all and Judgment came upon all 5 Rom. 12.18 But Original Sin is not without us Fifthly You tell me Infants have no Seminal Vnbelief p. 25. nor Impenitency in them Answ No wonder since they have no Seeds of any Sin then I hope they can easily believe and embrace Christ upon Gospel-terms when they come to Understanding They can easily Repent if they should chance to Sin. They are all born with Hearts of Flesh God need not take away the Heart of Stone from them But for all your Commendations of Infants we do not find them so ready to believe and repent when they grow up Sixthly Whereas we say That which will be a Thorn will soon prick So we find how quickly this thorny corrupt Nature in Infants begin to prick and shew itself in actual Sin so far as they are capable in Revenge Envy Pride Rebellion against Parents which lately I observ'd to my sorrow These Acts you excuse p. 26. and give to the example of ill Tutors But I pray whence is it they are so apt to learn Pelagius indeed would have Sin come in by imitation not propagation But Tully that Learned Heathen tells us Tusc l. 3. Simul ac Editi sumus in Lucom c. As soon as ever we are born we are presently exercised in all manner of Evil. Vt paene in lacte Nutricis Errorem suxisse videamur As if we sucked down Errour with the Nurses Milk. Compare this Heathen with Mr. Grantham the Christian B. Austin's Observation of Envy in a sucking Child you slight But that Godly Learned Father could judge of Envy as well as Mr. Grantham As for the Scriptures you produce to clear Infants from sin 1 Pet. p. 25. 2.1 2. Like new born Babes i. e. to lay aside all malice guile c. Answ You do mistake the Text it is As new Borns desire the sincere Milk c. it is the Milk and the Babe it is not as new born Babes lay aside Malice c. If Infants have no malice guile c. in semine how should they lay aside what they have not You will make Infants guilty by your Interpretation For the 1 Cor. 14.20 in wickedness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ye Children What do the Apostle mean he would have them as Children in your sence without the Seeds of Corruption Unbelief Impenitency and so cross himself in the 7 Rom. and 2 Ephes 3. and cross the Apostle John 1 Joh. 1.8 cross to David 51 Psal 5. and to our Lord 3 Joh. 6. nor is our Lord cross to himself in that 18 Mat. 3. I resolved for brevity else I would have spoken to these Texts more But what before I spake of the Thorn I may apply it to this Tho' the Thorn will prick and shew itself at first yet it is not so bad then and apt to hurt as it will do two years after when it runs into a Man's flesh So the sins of these little ones tho' cross to the holiness of the Law yet they have not that degree of evil and guilt with the same acts in adult Persons I said Mr. Grantham is very unsound or he must contradict himself How to reconcile his former sayings with what he writes page 13. I know not If this be your sence Children polluted by Original Sin so under Condemnation before they can come to Heaven must be cleansed from these pollutions I agree then you are on my side aginst your own Sect whom yet you justifie But the question is Whether they cannot be cleansed from Sin without they have Faith and Repentance You mistake Mr. Grantham the question was Whether God Regenerates any Infants which your Sect denied It was your Disciple that told me That Faith and Repentance are the two parts of Regeneration From his telling me thus I argued They that are Regenerated have Faith and Repentance they that have the whole have the parts this is his Doctrine But all Infants saved are Regenerated say I from Christ's words 3 Joh. 3.5 Therefore all Children saved have Faith and Repentance i. e. seminally To this you answer for him pag. 11. He that granted this extends it only to the Adult of whom these are required So that this is but a meer Caption unbecoming a grave Disputant It seems he wanted your Wit to express himself plainly But as for you who thus help him according to your Doctrine then there are two Regenerations one for Infants another for Men when their Beards are grown I pray do you define these two Regenerations and shew us how they differ then bring forth the plain Scriptures upon which you ground these and prove your two Definitions I never read but of one Regeneration in the Holy Canon for your two Regenerations I suppose you must fetch y our proof from 23 Revel 19. That Infants saved must be Regenerated the Text is clear 3 John 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an indefinitive word limited to no age Infant or Adult Infants are born once but whoever are generated and born after the ordinary course of Man if saved must be born twice or again Nicodemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fourth verse tells us how Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse is to be translated so must Infants else no Heaven Secondly That which is born of the flesh is flesh 3 Joh. 6. So are all Infants then they must be born of Water and the Spirit ver 5. else no Heaven for Infants Besides the other Scriptures I mentioned before I should define Regeneration thus It is a work of the (a) 3 Joh. 5. Spirit of God in fallen Man dead in sin (b) 2 Eph. 1. whereby infusing a principle of Spiritual Life (c) 2 Eph. 5. causing an habitual Conformity of all the Faculties of the Soul to the Image and Will of God (d) 4 Eph. 24. all the Faculties are inclined actu primo to live the Life of God (e) 4 Eph. 18. by the same Spirit acting (f) Phil. 13.1 Phil. 11.15 Joh. 5. this first Grace they do actu secundo bring forth the fruits of Spiritual Life and by the (g) 2 Tim. 1.14 Rom. 11. 1 Pet. 15. 1 Cor. 1.8 Indwelling and continued acting of that good Spirit they continue so to do till Man comes to Glory Mr. Grif. told me he did not say God could not Regenerate Infants but God doth not Regenerate But I say if God can do it then according to his revealed Will he must do it if Infants be saved And as for the first part of the Definition God can do and doth work it in all Infants in which to use the Metaphor are sown the Seeds of Faith and Repentance as well as of any other Graces For what difficulty there should be in sowing the Seeds of