Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

The second Argument was from some Scriptures,¹ proving that the Sacrament necessarily supposeth Conversion and saith, and therefore is not to work it. To this Mr. Blake Answers; 1. By referring to what he hath said in another book about some of these Texts; and thither I shall follow him: 1. About Mark. 16.16. he speaks, Treat. of Cov. pag. 243. Because he confesseth that these Texts are spoken of Baptism (and so are more to my principal end, and will hold as to the Lords Supper only:) I shall here peruse his Answers, having used the same Texts my self before. But (now I peruse the place) I find that his words of Mark 16.16. are those that I have already answered in my former Reply to him: and you may peruse his Rejoinder, if worth the labour. The same I say of his words on Act. 8.36, 37. on Act. 2.•8. in pag. 392. I find nothing to our purpose worth a Reply; but his Contest with Mr. Tombs, let Mr. I — regard. To Act. 2 41. he now answers, [It speaks no more than ready Acceptation of the tender of the Gospel; and whether this necessarily imply saving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Mat 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be consulted.] To which I reply, 1. If by [the tender of the Gospel] ⟨p. 126⟩you mean [the Gospel tendered], then either it is [the Gospel as the Gospel], declaring the work of Redemption, and offering us a Saviour to deliver us from sin and wrath: and this no unregenerate man did ever gladly or heartily •ccept. Or else it is [the Gospel as a Novel doctrine; or only •hat part of it which offereth them pardon without the other part which offereth salvation from sin it self. And this is mentioned in the Texts (or some of them) that you refer us to: But that this is not meant in the Text,