A26886:421
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.
[2. Saith Mr. Blake, A difference may be put between ordinary and quickening food] Repl. You should have told us your difference, & how it concerneth our case, if you would have had us taken notice of it. [3. He saith, The word gives new Food, and yet supposeth not new life, 1 Pet. 1.•.] Rep. The clean contrary is the scope of the Text you cite. As new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. The Word therefore as Food, doth suppose new Birth, and Life. Christ as our first life ⟨p. 128⟩is given in the Word to those that had not life before; but Christ as our Food is given after both in the Word and Sacrament.
But you say, [There is a Sacramental work preceding our eating, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin, to carry on the work of Contrition and Compunction.] Rep. Its a sorry arguing, that because there is that in the Sacrament which may benefit an ungodly man to see, that therefore he hath right to receive it, yea or is like to have benefit by it. He that will not consent that Christ shall be his full Saviour, may be moved to consent by seeing a Sacrament True, though it is not appointed to such ends, yet its possible. But how should he be moved to consent by receiving it, and so signally Professing to consent when he doth not? that is, by lying?
But you say, [There is a Sacramental work preceding our eating, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin, to carry on the work of Contrition and Compunction.] Rep. Its a sorry arguing, that because there is that in the Sacrament which may benefit an ungodly man to see, that therefore he hath right to receive it, yea or is like to have benefit by it. He that will not consent that Christ shall be his full Saviour, may be moved to consent by seeing a Sacrament True, though it is not appointed to such ends, yet its possible. But how should he be moved to consent by receiving it, and so signa•ly Professing to consent when he doth not? that is, by lying?