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

To the Minor I say, its true: but not of those that profess not true sanctification. The conclusion as is said, is alien: For though there can be no Giving without Receiving, yet may there be lawful Giving when it is unlawfully Demanded and Received: therefore from lawful giving upon an unlawful Demand, to a lawful Receiving, is no just consequence.

To the Minor I say, its true: but not of those that profess not true sanctification. The conclusion as is said, is aliene: For though there can be no Giving without Receiving, yet may there be lawful Giving when it is unlawfully Demanded and Received: therefore from lawful giving upon an unlawful Demand, to a lawful Receiving, is no just consequence.

Ad hominem, I would frame the like Argument on Mr. Blake's principles thus [We must give the Sacrament to edification, and not certainly to destruction. But we must give it to some that have not a Dogmatical faith: therefore some that have not a Dogmatical faith, must receive it to edification, &c.] The Major is his own: The Minor he dare not deny on his grounds: for we must give it to men that Profess a Dogmatical faith, ⟨p. 142⟩whether they have it or not: or else we must give it to no man, because we know not the heart. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, that according to Mr. Blake's Principles, it is the end of the Lords Supper to convert Heathens to Christ by receiving it, so they will but lye, and say they are Christians first. I profess I see no way of Mr. Blake's avoiding this, but by renouncing his dangerous Doctrine.

The 3. Argument is, [The Law and the Gospel in their joint strength may convert, &c. But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel, &c. Ergo.] Answ. 1. What may possibly fall out is nothing to the Question of Lawful Demanding or Giving. 2. There's neither Law nor Gospel in a wicked mans unjust Demand and Reception, and Lying signal professing to take Christ when he doth not: but Law and Gospel is against it. 3. The Law and Gospel which you mention as annexed to the reception are separable: and all you can thence prove, is, that a wicked man may be converted by seeing and hearing, and therefore may see and hear: but that's nothing to receiving. 4. Nor will it prove that he may see and hear, because its possible he may be converted by it, because the same Gospel is in its season with due application to himself to be preached to that end; and Christ hath not appointed his beholding the Application to another to be the commanded means for such ends.