The Infants Advocate Against the Cruel Doctrine of the Presbyterians, Title page – Preface
THE Infants Advocate, AGAINST The cruel Doctrine of thoſe Presbyterians, who hold, That the greateſt part of Dying Infants ſhall be DAMNED. In Anſwer to a Book of Mr. GILES FIRMIN'S, entituled, Scripture Warrant, &c. By THO. GRANTHAM.
Exod. 32. 32, 33.
Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their Sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy Book which thou haſt written. And the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, Whoſoever hath ſinned againſt me, him will I blot out of my Book.
Matth. 18. 10, 11, 14.
Take heed that ye deſpiſe not one of theſe little Ones; for I ſay unto you, that in Heaven their Angels do always behold the Face of my Father which is in Heaven. For the Son of Man came to ſeek, and to ſave that which is loſt—Even ſo it is not the Will of your Father which is in Heaven, that one of theſe little Ones ſhould periſh.
London, Printed by J. D. for the Author. 1688.
The PREFACE.
Honeſt Reader;
I Could not have thought that a Man reputed wiſe, an old Profeſſor, and one who ſo bears himſelf upon his Father's Covenant (whom he will have to be a Son of Abraham, and ſo himſelf to be Abraham's Son alſo) could have given ſuch evident Proof of the contrary, as by his Book he has brought forth. Sure I am, I anſwered his two Queſtions in much Love and Faithfulneſs, according to my Ability, being thereunto deſired by ſome of his Neighbours: And I hope no Impartial Reader will cenſure me to be a Scoffer, as Mr. Firmin does: But truly I think he was pleaſed to throw that Dirt, that he might have ſome pretence to give ſcope to his ill Spirit, to exerciſe it ſelf that way.
I confeſs I uſe theſe words upon the occaſion of his talking ſo high of his Father's Covenant [that it would even make a well Man ſick, to ſee what pitiful work he makes of it.] And here I will give thee an account of it, and then judg of me as thou pleaſeſt.
Saith Mr. F. When I could not tell where to lay hold (meaning in his diſmal Temptations) my Parental Covenant and Infant Baptiſm was a ſupport to me. So that I bleſs God, 1. For Abraham's Covenant. 2. I bleſs God that I had Godly Parents. 3. I bleſs God my Parents were no Anabaptiſts, &c. Only a word, ſome may think you had Godly Parents, mine were not ſo: It may be I had a Godly Grandfather, or a Mother; Had you ſo? no doubt but you may improve the Covenant from him. The ſecond Commandment will help you—others may ſay, Baptized I am, but my Parents bad enough. Well, art awake? and art in earneſt for Chriſt and the ſaving Bleſſings come by him? you may improve your Covenant. A Woman putting a Queſtion, how ſhe might know whether ever ſhe had theſe Qualifications? Mr. F. tells us, that whilſt he was troubled about making out theſe Qualifications, there comes a Motion into my Mind, (ſaith he) What ſay you to your Father's Covenant? you know your Parents were Godly—will you ſtand to your Father's Covenant? Here my Qualification was the choice of my Father's God, who was mine before by an external Covenant: But now to have him my God, my Portion by an internal Covenant, and Efficacy, here I was pent up. Will you chuſe or refuſe him? &c.
Now whether this Diſcourſe will not almoſt make a well Man ſick (I mean a ſerious Chriſtian troubled) to hear a wiſe Man talk at this rate? And whether he does not lay his Foundation upon his Qualification? for by that, ſaith he, was the choice of my Father's God. And does he not alſo ſet up his Will as high as ever any did, in chuſing or refuſing God to be his God, his Portion by internal Covenant and Efficacy? Sure he doth.
Mr. F's great buſineſs is to abuſe and diſgrace me, by falſe and fooliſh Stories, which have been told him by others, which I paſs by as unworthy obſervation. And then he falls in with the Papiſts againſt me, in the caſe of abſtaining from, or eating Blood, juſtifying himſelf and them in the latter. Tho he confeſſes the believing Gentiles were forbidden to eat Blood by that Decree, Act. 15. 29. And when theſe Decrees were repealed; he cannot tell; and whilſt he makes us for obſerving them, ſuch as do not believe the Blood of Chriſt to be our Atonement; and that we hold ſome things to be unclean of themſelves; he condemns alſo the Primitive Chriſtians, who religiouſly abſtain'd from Blood for ſeveral hundred Years after Chriſt, and makes himſelf wiſer than the Apoſtles; for had they known ſuch to be the conſequence, they would not have made them, nor have deliver'd them to be kept as they did, Acts 16. 4.
We know that that which goes into the Man defiles not, and therefore Blood defiles not, but acting againſt God's Word defiled Evah, even by eating that which was good for Food; and ſo may Mr. F. defile himſelf, for he ſays he will eat Blood Puddings, S. A. by which he means, Sir Anabaptiſt: and indeed a ſcornful Spirit breaths in many Pages of his late Books.
He is pleaſed to throw Dirt upon me very freely, about an eſcape of the Pen or Preſs, I am not ſure which, and yet he being a Scholar, and acquainted with ſuch over-ſights, could not but diſcern, unleſs Malice blinded him, that it was an overſight. The Paſſage is about the time when Tranſubſtantiation came into the World, and the Book which he quarels has it thus: How rigidly do they impoſe the Decrees of the Trent-Councils: Where note, the word Councils being plural, he might eaſily have ſuppoſed Lateran, which was wanting; for thus it ſtands in the Catechiſm of the Papiſts (of which I give notice Pag. 55.) The Lateran and Trent Councils, and from thence I took the date of Tranſubſtantiation. Not but that I have read the ſame in other Authors. But here he brands me with groſs Ignorance, and I grant I am not ſo well read as himſelf, if that will pleaſe him. And my rejoycing is this, that in Simplicity and Godly Sincerity I wrote that Book which he deſpiſes; and I hope God will bleſs my Endeavours, in which I truſt, I have no other ſcope but his Glory and the good of all Men; heartily deſiring that all Truth were reſtored to its Primitive Purity and Simplicity.
As to his three firſt Chapters, I ſhall ſay little to them at preſent, being very well ſatisfied with my Anſwers to his two Queſtions, notwithſtanding all that he has ſaid to render them invalid. The chief thing which I deſign in this Reply is, to maintain (what in me is) the Mercy of God to all dying Infants, againſt Mr. F. and others, whoſe cruel Doctrine ſends them by Millions to Helliſh Torments, as appears by this Book of Mr. Firmin's, p. 8. If all dying Infants ſhall be ſaved; there will be Millions in Heaven (ſaith he) in whom the Spirit of God—had nothing to do in their Salvation. I ſay, to maintain the Salvation of all dying Infants againſt thoſe who would thus damn them, is eſpecially my preſent undertaking. And if Mr. F. be diſpoſed to urge me further, it is a Subject I am willing to debate with him, when and how he pleaſes, ſo that we may diſcourſe in Love▪ as becomes Chriſtians. And as to the Queſtions about Sacred Baptiſm, that Work may perhaps be undertaken in a particular Treatiſe by it ſelf. In the mean time, let it be conſidered, that it has been granted both by Papiſts and Proteſtants, (and thoſe of the more Learned ſort too) That there is no Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm. That the Scripture ſhews us no other way of baptizing, but by dipping. Yea, I lately asked a *It was not the Bp of Norwich, for I never ſaw him, nor did I ever diſpute any Doctor out of the room, as Mr. F. hath both fooliſhly and falſly reported in Print, with no leſs than ſix other falſe and very frivolous Tales, in half a Page▪Doctor of the Church of England very ſeriouſly, Whether he held Infant-Baptiſm to be of Divine Inſtitution? Who very freely gave me this Anſwer, No truly, I only look upon it as a Church-Rite. But then, whether the Church have ſuch Power, as to make Rites and Ceremonies in Religion, and particularly thus to alter the ſubject and manner of Baptiſm, as has confeſſedly been done by the Church of Rome, and in part by the Church of England, is the buſineſs for this preſent Age to take into their moſt ſerious Conſideration.
T. G.