Answer to the Question Charged by Grantham, Part
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, 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 Ʋncircumciſion 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 Ʋnrighteouſneſs 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 Ʋpon, I do not underſtand; Paul calls it Indwelling Sin, 7 Rom. 17.20. I was 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 Ʋnbelief, 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. Ʋt 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 foreign, 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. foreign. The word foreign 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 foreign, in the fourth verſe tells us how Chriſt's foreign, 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 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, foreign. 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 their Regeneration, their Sanctification: then we are agreed, you yield me the Queſtion againſt your own Party; and this ſhall not diſpleaſe me, if they be all ſaved, as you falſly tell your Reader. Yet I am not ſatisfied in your Diſcourſe.
Infants have ſufficient aſſiſtance, becauſe they do not reſist, ſay you. This is ſomething odd methinks.
First, What then are Infants active, tho' weak, and ſo the Spirit aſſist them; for ſo I conceive aſſiſtance doth properly reſpect one that acts, but is too weak to perfect his act. Are we ſaid properly to aſſiſt them who do nothing at all? we aſſiſt weak men, not dead men.
Secondly, Do the Spirit work morally, by way of Suaſion with Infants, and they not reſiſt him, as they 7 Acts 51.
Thirdly, The corrupt Nature in Infants incline them to reſiſt him, and not to comply with him.
Fourthly, Are you ſure that Chriſt ſhed his Blood for every Individual dying Infant intentionally? 2. And was it not for all Infants as well as dying Infants? 3. And did he ſhed it for them only while they were Infants, and not when they grew up to be adult? 4. And doth he then give to them all ſufficient Grace? 5. And is that ſufficient Grace ſtatu lapſo, that doth not attain its end? If the ſtony Heart that is to be taken away, be for ſtonineſs ſix Degrees, the Grace which takes it away muſt be ſeven Degrees, elſe 'tis not ſufficient. 6. How comes it about then that Chriſt fails ſo much, even the far greateſt part in his Intentions? Certainly the Father and the Son had the ſame Intentions, when the Covenant of Redemption paſſed between them.
But p. 16, you propound a profound Queſtion, viz.
Whether the Covenant of Grace was taken from the whole World, and appropriated only to Abraham and his Seed, from the time of making the Covenant of Circumciſion, 17 Gen. 7.
I prithee Thomas, how came this Queſtion into thy Crown? My ſhallow Brains could not have invented it. Will you faſten this upon me too, when my words are expreſly the contrary, p. 20. By the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, and the Seal of it, God did ſeparate and divide Abraham's Seed from the World, living under that Covenant you ſpeak of. How was this Covenant taken from the World, Mr. Grantham, when I tell you expreſly the World lived under it, tho' that Covenant was made with Abraham and his Seed?
Take my Mind thus: There was one ſhort and Enigmatical Diſcovery of Chriſt, and Goſpel-Grace, 3 Gen. 15. In the Seed of the Woman. After this, tho' there were thouſands in the World, yet God ſingles out Abraham, and makes another Diſcovery to him, In thy Seed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed, 12 Gen. 3. Whence the Apoſtle, 2 Heb. 16. He that took on him the Seed of Abraham; not of Noah, nor any Man elſe. After God had given this Promiſe which concerned the whole World, the benefit whereof divers that were not of the Church of the Jews did partake of, I doubt not; God was pleaſed to make a Covenant with Abraham to be the God of him and his Seed, and commanded this Covenant to be ſealed, and thus did diſtinguiſh his Seed from the World, living under the Promiſe made firſt to Abraham. This Abraham, not Noah, 4 Rom. 11.16.18. 3 Gal. 29, 11 Rom. 17.God honours with the Title of the Father of Believers. Gentile Believers are called Abraham's Children, not Noah's. They are grafted into Abraham's Stock, not Noah's. As then Abraham's Seed, born under that Covenant, were Members of the Church with their Parents, had the initiating Ordinance applied to them: So the Gentile Believers [whoſe Father Abraham is] Seed being under the Covenant of their Father Abraham, are Members of the Goſpel-Church with their Parents, have a right to the initiating Ordinance, Baptiſm: unleſs it can be proved that God hath nulled Abraham's Covenant expreſly *See my Scripture Warraw, p. 8, 9.: which all the Anabaptiſts in England can never do. And this is no obſcure Conſequence, as you call it, to prove Infant-Baptiſm, but it is far more clear, plain, intelligible, then that Conſequence by which our Lord proved the great Article of our Reſurrection.
As for Noah, about whom you ſpend ſo many lines, we honour him as much as you: But do you ſhew where God made ſuch a Covenant with him and his Seed, as he did with Abraham and his Seed, and ſealed it. So that Noah's Seed might humbly and believingly lay hold upon God for their God, by way of Covenant; elſe all your words about Noah, are but your rambling from the Queſtion, a meer Ignoratio Elenchi, as I told you before.
Then you ſcribble ſomething about Free-will, and tell me of Mr. Baxter's Judgment: I am of his Opinion, I will not enter into that Controverſie; only two things I ſay.
Firſt, Liberty as it is oppoſed to natural neceſſity, and co-action is eſſential to the Will. In the work of the Father drawing the Soul to Chriſt, the Will in cloſing with, and embracing of Chriſt is as free in reſpect of Co-action, as it was in ſinning againſt Chriſt. What would you have more Mr. Grantham?
Secondly, Liberty and ſome neceſſity may ſtand together, viz. Libertas Conſequentiae, elſe the Will muſt be more than bruitiſh.
But if you have a mind to ſhew what a gallant Fellow you are in this Controverſie, I deſire you to read and anſwer two Men who lived in Communion with the Church of Rome, Bradwardin, and Janſenius, his Auguſtinus; I name no Proteſtants. But Janſenius I commend to you upon this account: Becauſe as I was informed by a ſober Dutch Miniſter, whoſe Uncle was at Janſenius's Commencement; as you were bound firſt to a Taylor, ſo he was bound firſt to a Carpenter: but he was ſo exceedingly Bookiſh while but a Youth, that his Maſter wiſhed his Parents to take him away, get ſome help of Friends, and put him to School; there indeed he differs from you, as your Admirer tells us here, that you ſerved out your Apprentiſhip. But there is a ſecond difference: This excellent Carpenter choſe ſuch Timber, and built ſo ſtrong, that all the Jeſuits [your Friends in this Controverſie] could never ſhake his Building. But you that were a Taylor, do but as Adam did, ſew Fig-leaves together, to make an Apron, which will not cover your nakedneſs.
FINIS.
End of the text · Giles Firmin, Answer to the Question Charged by Grantham (1689)