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

Now to come closer to Mr. Blake's Argument; 1. I grant the Major, (as far as through the Lantern of his dark ambiguous phrases I can discern the sense of it,) viz that we may admit those to the Lords Supper, that are justly admitted to Baptism, if naturally capable, and have not since given cause to suspend them. And here Mr. Blake shows, that it is the lower species of Faith that entitles men (in his judgement) to the Lords Supper, because he maintaineth that this lower species entitleth them to Baptism.

Now to come closer to Mr. Blake's Argument; 1. I grant the Major, (as far as through the Lanthorn of his dark ambiguous phrases I can discern the sense of it,) viz that we may admit those to the Lords Supper, that are justly admitted to Baptism, if naturally capable, and have not since given cause to suspend them. And here Mr. Blake shews, that it is the lower species of Faith that entitles men (in his judgement) to the Lords Supper, because he maintaineth that this lower species entitleth them to Baptism.

His Minor I grant of the Professors of saving Faith; and deny it of all others that Profess only another faith: nor hath he proved that such have a visible Interest, or Profession, it being not Christianity, but only part of its essence, which they Profess.

His 2. Argument is (It is the mind of God they be admitted: therefore to this end.] Answ. 1. It is not the mind of God that they ⟨p. 141⟩should Demand and Receive it: therefore not to this end. 2. It may not be the admitters principal end, but a secondary, only on supposition that the Receiver be not what he seems to be, and so be not a lawful demander of it. 3. It is not the will of God that your Professor of another kind of faith only be admitted.