The first Argument of Galaspies 201, which he answereth,1 is from [the Nature of Sacraments, which are to signify that we have already Faith in Christ, Remission of sin by him, and Union with him] The sense of the Argument is, That seeing Sacraments (according to Christs institution) are confirming signs, presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods; therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them (at least those at age) To this Master Blake answereth, This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signs declare & show that we have Faith & remission of sins. The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body & blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a sign either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not, Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case; yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating, that I shall give you this reply to it: 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine. The Offer with Take, eat, signifieth the offer of Christ to us, to be received and applied: the Taking, and Eating, and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance, & Application of him. With himself is offered the pardon of sin, and given to all that Accept him, which by Taking, Eating and Drinking we profess to ⟨p. 124⟩do. It is my duty to tell you, that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know, that our believing and Remission is here signified. Its pity but this had been known before you had written of them, at least Controversally. What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals, signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods? and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange? If it be so to you, its pity that it is so: But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines, that affirm this which you call new. It is indeed their most common doctrine, that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin, and our faith, and that they are instituted to signify these as in being;
The first Argument of Galaspies 201, which he answereth,1 is from [the Nature of Sacraments, which are to signifie that we have already Faith in Christ, Remission of sin by him, and Union with him] The sense of the Argument is, That seeing Sacraments (according to Christs institution) are confirming signs, presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods; therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them (at least those at age) To this Master Blake answereth, This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signs declare & shew that we have Faith & remission of sins. The Sacrament now in question is a sign of the body & blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a sign either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise than upon believing (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not, Repl. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this Case; yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating, that I shall give you this reply to it: 1. The sacramental Actions are signs as well as the substance of bread and wine. The Offer with Take, eat, signifieth the offer of Christ to us, to be received and applyed: the Taking, and Eating, and Drinking signifieth our Acceptance, & Application of him. With himself is offered the pardon of sin, and given to all that Accept him, which by Taking, Eating and Drinking we profess to ⟨p. 124⟩do. It is my duty to tell you, that it is sad that a Treatise of Sacraments should profess not to know, that our believing and Remission is here signified. Its pity but this had been known before you had written of them, at least Controversally. What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals, signifying and sealing our part as well as Gods? and how ill do you to wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange? If it be so to you, its pity that it is so: But sure you have seen Mr. Gatakers Books against Doct. Word and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited of our Protestant Divines, that affirm this which you call new. It is indeed their most common doctrine, that the Sacrament doth pre-suppose Remission of sin, and our faith, and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being;
- 1Mr. Galaspi• 's Arguments defended against Mr. Blakes answ. Argum. 1.
