A26886:634
Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…
Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending them against several sorts of opponents, especially against the second assault of that pious, reverend and dear brother Mr. Thomas Blake / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
ANSWER.
1. I will not stand now upon the question, Whether such Arguments from mere Analogy 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 looked 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, containeth the chief Dependence on him. To take him for our only God, is to take him for ⟨p. 190⟩our only Sovereign 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.
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