Presumption No Proof, Preface
The PREFACE.
Containing Brief Anſwers to two Queſtions, propounded by Mr. Giles Firmin, in his Book called, The Plea of the Children of believing Parents.
BEcauſe Mr. Firmin's Queſtions bear date, four years before Mr. Petto's Arguments, I will give them Precedence in my anſwering them.
Their Books are much of one quality, ſave that Mr. Firmin's abounds with more unhandſom Reflections upon many, in which kind of dealing it were eaſy to give Retaliation; but that is not commendable.
What he writes againſt Mr. Danvers, I leave to him to vindicate himſelf, as he has done againſt others, and that very well, either by juſtifying his Authorities, or rectifying ſuch Over-fights, as might eaſily befal the moſt accurate Writer in ſuch a multitude of Quotations; and which I am perſuaded would much ſatisfy Mr. Firmin himſelf, would he impartially read the Controverſies.
Mr. Firmin being a wiſer Man than to engage cloſely in the Queſtion about the Divine Authority for Infant-Baptiſm, maintains his Fight at a great diſtance, ſave that he plays a little with ſome Arguments, rather of other Mens deviſing than his own. He at laſt comprehends the whole ſtrength of his Diſcourſe in two Queſtions; and ONLY deſires ſome Anſwer to them, from thoſe whom he is pleaſed conſtantly to call Anabaptiſts.
I know no ſuch Creature, yet I know that he means thoſe Chriſtians who, according to God's Word, Heb. 6. 1, 2. make Baptiſm the third (not the firſt) Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine. In which order the firſt and beſt of Goſpel-Churches received it, even that which was founded by Chriſt himſelf, in the exerciſe of his Miniſtry, and which is therefore the Mother of all Churches Chriſtian; in which Church, conſiſting of believing Jews, their Children had as clear an Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace as any can pretend to, and as great Priviledges in the Church Chriſtian as was, or is needful for any; and yet whoever reads the Plantation and Progreſs of that Church, or the Epiſtle which was written to them on the occaſion of ſome Decays, which afterward befel them, ſhall never find ſo much as one Infant baptiſed in that Church, nor indeed in any other during the Apoſtles Days; which Conſideration alone is enough to cauſe a modeſt Enquirer to queſtion the Legality of Infant-Baptiſm. Mr. Firmin has got Infant-Baptiſm into a very little Corner, it belongs only to Children of believing Parents [in an Independent or Presbyterian Senſe] ſo that a great Part of the World called Chriſtendom, will have no Right to it. And he makes it very inſignificant to a great number of theſe two, for pag. 33. he does not make God to be INDEED their God, till with his Call he gives them Faith to anſwer his Call. And this is the reaſon (I ſuppoſe) why they deny theſe ſo pretendedly holy Infants, whom they ſprinkle, any Priviledg in their Church at the Lord's Table, till they covenant again, which is commonly 20, 30 or 40 years after they have ſprinkled them. For which ſtrange Practice they have not the leaſt Tittle in God's Word to warrant it; and where then they can find a Rule for this Practice I know not.
I have been told that Mr. Firmin's Queſtions are taken by ſome to be unanſwerable: Let us therefore view them in his Words verbatim.
The firſt is thus.
Mr. Firmin's Queſt. I.
Since God was ſo gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and it did then conſiſt with his Wiſdom to conſtitute his Church of Parents and Children, while the Parents did believe in the Meſſiah to come; Why may it not conſiſt with his Grace to continue that Covenant, and with his Wiſdom ſtill to conſtitute his Goſpel-Church of Parents and Children, the Jews now believing in Chriſt come?
Anſwer.
You muſt allow that the Covenant of Grace was not reſtrained to Abraham and his Seed, but did belong to many at that time both Parents and Children; many holy Patriarchs being then living, and ſome outlived Abraham himſelf, and yet none of theſe were concerned in the Covenant of Circumciſion, as made with Abraham, Gen. 17. but only in the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam and Noah, which had now continued more than 2000 years, during all which time no Infant was concerned either in Circumciſion or Baptiſm, and yet were as much of the Church as was needful for their Salvation. And hence a Man may very well anſwer your Queſtion, by asking you another, Thus:
Since God was ſo gracious to make a Covenant with Adam and Noah and their Seed, and it did then conſiſt with his Wiſdom to conſtitute his Church of Parents to practiſe his Ordinances, and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life, without being concerned in the Practice of Ordinances in their Infancy, for more than 2000 years before Chriſt came: Why may it not confiſt with his Grace to continue that Covenant of Grace made with Adam, Noah (and Abraham himſelf 24 years before he was circumciſed)? and with his Wiſdom ſtill to conſtitute his Goſpel-Church of Parents to practiſe his Ordinances, and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life, without being concerned in the Practice of his Ordinances in their Infancy, ſince Chriſt is come; eſpecially conſidering that Chriſt himſelf did not appoint thoſe very Infants who were brought to him, to have his Ordinances impoſed upon them?
If Mr. Firmin be not ſatisfied with this Reply, then let me tell him it becomes no Man, no not Mr. Firmin himſelf, to propound ſuch an unlearned Queſtion, which is guilty of no more reaſon than this: Since God was ſo gracious, and it did conſiſt with his Wiſdom to give Abraham a Command to offer up his beloved Son as a Sign of Chriſt to come, why may it not conſiſt with his Grace and Wiſdom, for us of our own Heads without any Command from God, to offer up every one his deareſt Child in remembrance that Chriſt is come?
Sir, What may, or may not conſiſt with the Wiſdom of God in relation to his Church-conſtitution, and our ſerving him in matters of Religion, muſt not be concluded from the likeneſs which we fancy to be between his former Inſtitutions, and our own, or others Inventions; but from ſuch Directions as he has given us by the Meſſiah, which was to teach us all things, John 4. both concerning our ſelves, and concerning our Infants.
And we do therefore know that it was not conſiſtent with the Wiſdom of God to conſtitute his Goſpel-Church, ſo as to impoſe Goſpel-Ordinances upon Infants (although he did impoſe Legal Ordinances upon them) Becauſe Chriſt (who is the Wiſdom of God) hath revealed no ſuch thing to his Apoſtles, nor they to us.
And like as ye know it to be inconſiſtent with the Wiſdom of God, to bring little Children ſo into the Church, as to partake of the Lord's Table, becauſe God hath required Faith and Humiliation in every one that comes to that holy Manducation: So we do know it to be inconſiſtent with the Wiſdom of God to bring Infants ſo into his Church, as to partake of holy Baptiſm, becauſe Repentance, whereby Sin is forſaken, and Faith to believe God's Promiſes, is required by him of thoſe that he requires to be baptized. You ſee then that we do not deny Infants to be of the Church, in ſuch ſort as to obtain Salvation, with them that ſhall be ſaved; although we deny them to be in the Church in your ſence. But let us hear your ſecond Queſtion.
Mr. Firmin's Queſt. II.
If God hath repealed his Covenant with the believing Jews Seed, turned their Children out of the Church, and deny them Baptiſm, tho the Jews truly believe in Chriſt come; what hath God left in the room of theſe, that carry any ſhew of his Bleſſing, or good Will towards their Children during their Infant-ſtate?
Anſwer.
The Words Covenant and Church, as uſed by Mr. Firmin, are ambiguous. I do not find that Abraham, nor Iſaac neither, were out of the Church till they were circumciſed. It's evident Abraham's Seed was in Covenant before they were eight days old, even as it was a peculiar viſible Church-Covenant, elſe all that were uncircumciſed for forty years in the Wilderneſs were out of the Church and Covenant.
Mr. Firmin himſelf believes that Infants are in the Covenant, and in the Church alſo, before they be ſprinkled by him. For this is the Minor of one of his Arguments, p. 103. But Children of believing Parents are Church members, and this before you ſprinkle them. Now, Sir, if your Doctrine be true; then it is not our waiting for a fit time to baptize our Children, which turns them out of the Church, nor does God for our ſo doing turn them out of the Church; any whit more than your waiting a fit time, (and you make it perhaps twenty, thirty, or forty years) for your bringing your Children to the Lord's Table, turns them out of the Church. Indeed if they live to years, and chuſe ſinful ways, they then turn themſelves out of that Relation they had to God and his People in their Infancy, by virtue of God's gracious Covenant; and they thus turning his Mercy into Jndgment, ſhall periſh whether yours or ours. The Caſe is equal, I need ſay no more to a wiſe Man.
Yet I add, That the believing Jews, and their Infants alſo, were now made free from the Jewiſh Church-ſtate, Gal. 5. 1. But neither they nor their Infants were deprived of any place in the Church, which was needful for them in their reſpective capacities; yet the Parents had many Duties upon them which the Infants had not, and of theſe the Baptiſm of Repentance was one; they had alſo Priviledges which the Infants had not, of which the Lord's Table was one. Yet the little Children had theſe Priviledges which the Children of Unbelievers had not. Firſt to be devoted to God by the Prayers of the Church, warranted therein by the Example of Chriſt, who when little Children were brought to him for Prayer, did not refuſe but perform it, and wills that little Children be brought to him; and accordingly we do dedicate our Children to him from the Womb, according to our Capacity.
2. Little Children are alſo by this means (i. e. of their Parents Converſion) under the Bleſſing of an early Education in the Chriſtian Religion; by which means (through God's Bleſſing) I have known ſome who were not ſprinkled in Infancy, attain to more true Knowledg of Chriſtianity, and Experience of the Work of Grace (ſo far as Man may judg) at 7 or 8 years of Age, than multitudes of thoſe who were ſprinkled in their Infancy, have attained at the Age of 70 or 80 years.
3. Our gracious God by Jeſus Chriſt hath left us an open Declaration that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants, in which Declaration he has not excepted ſo much as one of them. This is more than Circumciſion, and more clear than any thing before declared concerning Infants, tho there was evidence of God's Love to them before.
From all which you may ſee, that God hath left us in the room of Circumciſion, a far more excellent Teſtimony of his ſaving pleaſure concerning Infants than that was, or any legal Rite whatſoever.
As for Mr. Baxter's Argument which you borrow, 'tis anſwered in what is ſaid to your Queſtions. Howbeit, I have more particularly Anſwered it in my Examination of no leſs than five hundred Queries, gathered by one of his Admirers out of his voluminous Works; all which have been redargued by a proportionable number of Anti-Queries, in which all his Devices for Poedorantiſm, is in ſome meaſure diſcovered to be but the cunning craftineſs of human ſubtilty, or a copious Brain. Of whoſe Books on this Subject, and Dr. Hammonds alſo, take thus the Judgment of a Learned Doctor of the Church of England now living: I have ſeen what my learned and worthy Friend Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, and others ſay in defence of [Infant Baptiſm]; and muſt confeſs I do not a little wonder that Men of ſo great Parts ſhould ſay ſo much to ſo little purpoſe; for I have not yet ſeen any thing like an Argument for it. Dr. Barlows Letter to Mr. Tombs.
Thus much in Anſwer to your Queſtions. See more in the laſt Part.
One thing I take ſpecial notice of in your Diſcourſe of Infants. You tie up the Salvation of all Infants that ſhall be ſaved, to their having Faith ſome way; yea, you ſay, elſe they muſt all periſh. p. 90. And you allow Faith to no more Infants than are elected in your ſeme of Election. The reſt of Infants, even of believing Parents, are reprobate and damned, for all the Noiſe which ye make of their Covenant-Intereſt, Church-Memberſhip, Holineſs, &c.
Miſerable Infants! If there be none to plead your cauſe better than Mr. Firmin has done, it's uncertain whether ſo much as one of you ſhall be ſaved out of a thouſand.
And whilſt his Book may cauſe many weak Readers to think that Circumciſion did, and that Infant-Baptiſm doth great things toward their Saltion, it's evident he can believe no ſuch thing himſelf. For if they be elect, ſaved they ſhall be tho they be not baptiſed: And for thoſe Infants which are reprobated, damned they muſt be tho they be baptiſed.
He is ſo far from making Baptiſm of Infants to be of that Concernment which you may imagine from ſome Paſſages in him, that he plainly tells you, p. 20. That he does not think that a ſound Believer dying without Baptiſm ſhall be damned: And then how an innocent Infant dying without Baptiſm ſhould be damned, is not eaſy to be imagined. But, by his favour, if ſuch a Believer had opportunity to be baptiſed, and neglected his Baptiſm, he will hardly paſs for a ſound Believer in the Day of Judgment; becauſe in this thing he believed not his Lord, who told him, Thus it becomes us to fulfil all Righteouſneſs, Mat. 3. 15. Deut. 1. 33. Act. 3. 22, 23. And I muſt in Faithfulneſs tell Mr. Firmin, that ſuch a ſound Believer I take him to be, for after all the Improvement which he tells us he has made of his Fathers Covenant, (which would make a well Man ſick even to ſee what pittiful work he makes with it, pag. 68, 69, 70, 71.) for after all his ſhifting from Poſt to Pillar, he only gets Stomach to reject the Counſel of God againſt himſelf, being not baptiſed with the Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins, as ſome of the Learned have done before him, Luk. 7. 30.
And ſeeing it is the known Practice of Infant-ſprinklers to ſprinkle them when they are faſt aſleep, and it is odds but Mr. Firmin was aſleep when he was ſprinkled and croſſed, and therein theſe wonderful things done, which he talks of, without Scripture or Reaſon to warrant his Conceits. I deſire to know of him what Ground any Man hath, his Parents or himſelf, to baptiſe any Perſon when they are aſleep? This is no idle Enquiry, but calls for the Conſideration of all ſerious Chriſtians.
In theſe and the following Pages you will find this to be Mr. Firmin's ſenſe: That the Covenant as it concerns Infants, hath two Parts, the inward, and the outward: That ſome Infants have the outward Part who are not concern'd in the inward Part, and that the firſt ſort of Infants cannot fall, but the reſt may and ſhall fall, becauſe they have not ſeminal Faith and Regeneration, but only reputative Faith. And yet ſure this was not the Infants Fault, for it could not chuſe of what Seed it ſhould be produced. And what the Seminal Faith is, I ſuppoſe Mr. Firmin may know as much as thoſe Infants do whom he ſuppoſes to have it. Dr. Hammond was a great Man for Infant-ſprinkling, yet he rejects this Fable of Mr. Firmin's: For he tells us, he muſt confeſs that Faith is ſo neceſſarily founded in Underſtanding, that he which hath not Ʋnderſtanding, cannot have Faith. And Dr. Taylor confeſſes, whether Infants have Faith, is a Queſtion to be diſputed by thoſe who care not how much they affirm, and how little th…y prove.
This damning all In… which have not Faith, I take to be a very damnable Doctrine, becauſe it repreſents God to be ſo cruel, as to make millions … Infants on purpoſe to ſend them to Hell, who could by no means help … want of Faith. What Man would kill his new-born Child, becauſe it does not call him Father as ſoon as it is born? And ſhall mortal Man be more juſt than God, ſhall Man be more righteous than his Maker?
I am aſhamed of the Doctrine of our Presbyterians and Independents, which, as I am informed, teach that Infants are yelling in Hell, yea that Infants of a Span long are yelling in Hell.
I am alſo aſhamed of Mr. Firmin's Conceit, pag. 90. where from Dr. Ames he would have us believe, that an Infant is as capable of a paſſive Reception of Chriſt and Grace, as a Man. Now if this be true, that Men are no more capable to ſuffer the Grace of God to act upon their Souls than Infants, I am perſuaded they would fare better than they are like to do. For it is certain if Infants receive any thing of Chriſt or Grace, it is meerly by Miracle, as in the caſe of John the Baptist, when he was in the Womb: and hence it muſt needs follow, that unleſs God will work a Miracle upon every one at the Beginning of his Converſion, he is excuſable; according to this Fancy of Dr. Ames and Mr. Firmin.
Is not this an Adulterous Generation, who without a Miracle will not admit that any Man can receive Chriſt more than an Infant, who it's certain cannot receive him without a Miracle?
But let ſuch vain Diſputers know, that the Record which God hath given of his Son, concerning his Death and Reſurrection, will be ſufficient to leave them without excuſe if they believe it not, and that it is their Duty (not the Duty of Infants) to receive Chriſt as made known to them in his Doctrine, which if they believe not, it ſhall judg them (not Infants) in the laſt Day.
Some indeed do abuſe Epheſ. 1. 19, 20. to uphold this falſe Opinion, that none can believe without ſuch a Power as by which Chriſt was raiſed from the dead. Whereas it is evident, the Apoſtle only ſhews that the Faith of Chriſtians agrees with, or is according to the Power of God, which he wrought in Chriſt when he raiſed him up from the dead, i. e. they doubt not at all, but that the ſame God which had Power to raiſe up Chriſt from the dead, has Power to do whatſoever he pleaſes, and ſo to raiſe us up alſo by his Power, 1 Cor. 6. 14. 2 Cor. 4. 14. For the Power by which Chriſt was raiſed from the dead, being irreſiſtable, all the Power of Men and Devils cannot reſiſt it. All that have true Faith, do believe that no Power ſhall be able to withſtand God in the Reſurrection, but that his People ſhall be raiſed from Death to Life, and ſet with Chriſt in Glory, maugre the Devil and all his Power.
But the Power of God's Grace by which God works in Men in an ordinary way, is not irreſiſtable; Ye do always reſiſt the Holy Ghoſt, Act. 7. 51. and 13. 46. Chriſt marvelled at the Unbelief of the Jews, Mar. 6. 6. becauſe they had a ſufficiency of means by which to believe, otherwiſe he could not have marvelled at their Unbelief. But what needs many words? Unbelief ſhall be the condemning Sin, John 3. 18, 19. Mark 16. 16. It follows therefore againſt all Contradiction, that Men periſh not for want of an Object of Faith, but becauſe they reject that Object, and neglect that great Salvation which God offers them, Heb. 2. 1, 2, 3. otherwiſe it will follow that all which ſhall be damned, were created to be damned without any Remedy. And how unlike this is to that God whoſe tender Mercies are over all his Works, and to that Chriſt who wept for the Deſtruction of his Enemies, Luk. 19. 41, 42. let all Men of Reaſon judg, as they would judg in any caſe where Juſtice and Mercy muſt both ſtand inviolate.
This ſtrange Doctrine of damning the greateſt Part of the World, and that before the World was, is ſo pernicious, that it makes God Author of all Sin for which Damnation is due. For if he have deſtin'd the greateſt Part of the World, Infants and grown Perſons, to a damned State, without any Intention of their Salvation, or means to prevent their Deſtruction, becauſe it was his Pleaſure to damn them. He that was thus Author of their End, muſt alſo be Author of that which conduces to the end: but far be this from God.
And let it be far from us to think thus hardly of God, that he ſhould be ſo unmerciful, as to ſend poor Infants to Hell-torments, who only had time in this World to cry and die, and ſometimes too to die before they could cry.