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

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.

In the end he sums up his Argument thus [Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification, and not certainly to destruction: But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified: therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification, and not to destruction.] Answ. 1. Plus est in conclusion, quàm in praemissis. You should only have concluded, [therefore Ministers may give it. &c.) and not [therefore some may Receive it.) For 2. The word (certainly) which you put in the Major (and leave out in the conclusion) refers either to the Certainty of the Object. or Gods subjective Certainty: or the receivers subjective Certainty; and in all these respects its false. For if God or the Receiver were certain that it would prove destructive, yet the Minister may give it, if demanded; but not if he be certain of it himself. But 3. No Minister is required to be certain of the Demanders state, or whether the Sacrament will prove to his edification or destruction, nor whether the person intend rightly in it, but he is bound to give it to a Professor of saving Faith that Demandeth it, and to intend his good in it, which yet he cannot effect, if the Receiver be unmeet.