Right to Sacraments, Disputation 2 · Answer 18 – Argument 20
ANSWER.
1. I will not stand now upon the question, Whether such Arguments from meer Analogie will hold; nor whether there were any special reason of a difference. I suppose in this I shall agree with Mr. Blake. But I utterly deny their Antecedent; and require them to prove it if they are able: yea, that ever one person was circumcised upon the account of any faith short of that which then was saving? We are not now upon the Question, what God lookt for: or what was necessary to warrant them before God to demand Circumcision. But our Question is, what the Circumciser must look for? and what was necessary to warrant them to circumcise them? And that was the Profession (by the person if at age; if not, by his Parent or pro-Parent) of a true saving faith, and nothing lower. They professed to take the Lord only for their God; and if they did but that sincerely, they should be saved: For to be our God, is to be our chiefest Good, and to take him for such, is to Love him above all and prefer before all. To take him for our God, is to take him for the Principal Efficient of our Being and Well-being: And so to take him, conteineth the chief Dependance on him. To take him for our only God, is to take him for our only Soveraign Ruler: and so to take him, containeth resolution to obey him. And moreover, the Israelites did engage to obedience to Gods Law, and professed their consent to obey it.
Object. But many of them were wicked in their lives. Answ. 1. But our Question is, Whether they they did not profess a saving faith? or whether they were admitted on the profession of another kind of faith? 2. The more impious were to be cut off by death, according to Gods Law: And dead men cannot beget children to be circumcised.
ARGUMENT XIX.
Then we must re-baptize those whose▪ Parents had not saving faith, because their Baptism is a Nullity: And what work will that make among us?
ANSWER.
1. There's no shew of reason for the Consequence. If any such thing would follow, it would be but this, [That we must re-baptize them whose Parents professed not saving faith;] and thats not one that ever I saw present a child to Baptism, if we speak of a verbal Profession. 2. Neither will this perhaps follow neither: but only that which was not done, should be done; that is, Profession; and not that which was done, be done again; that is, external Baptizing. 3. I find by sad experience to my sorrow, that a considerable part of some Parishes, or Villages, are ignorant of the Fundamentals: I have spoken with abundance that know not that Christ is God or Man, or either (but they say, he is a Spirit;) nor that the Holy Ghost is God; nor why Christ dyed; nor that any Satisfaction is made for our sins; or any thing done or necessary to their pardon, but our own Repentance and Amendment: and with some that know not that the Soul goes to Heaven before the Resurrection, nor that the body shall ever rise again. Now I would know of Mr. Blake, Whether all the Children of these Parents must be Baptized again, or not? For certainly these have not a Dogmatical faith, which is the thing that he saith entitleth to Baptism. And then what certainty have we that any of our Ances…ors had a true Dogmatical faith? As Mr. Blake therefore will deal with his Dissemblers that seem to have a Dogmatical faith, and have it not, so me thinks he should allow us to do by ours, that seem to have a saving faith and have not: and so by their Posterity.
ARGUMENT XX.
By your Rule, no man may come to the Lords Supper, nor offer his Child to Baptism that hath not assurance of the sincerity of his faith. For if it be Gods will that they must profess saving faith, then they must know that they have it; for no man must profess that which he is uncertain of: for he cannot do it in faith, and so will be condemned.