Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…

Pag. 192. he saith [All professed Christians, so called, are in an outward and single Covenant] 1. What? those that are called professed Christians, and are not? No: sure that's not the meaning: else mens miscalling might put them in Covenant. It is then those that are so, and are called so: But will it not serve, if they are so, unless called so? 2. He means either those that profess the name of Christianity, or the Thing. Of the insufficiency of the first, I spoke before. For the second, if they profess the whole Essence of Christianity undissembledly, I think they are truly Regenerate. If they profess but part (as to the Matter both of Assent and Consent, of which I spoke before in the Conclusions, and which we have in this County lately set down in our Profession of Faith) then it is not Christianity which they profess: for part of the essence is not the Thing: where an essential part is wanting, the form is absent. If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed, but Dissembledly; then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Christian, so I yield he is a member of the Visible Church, which so far as it is only Visible, is equivocally called The Church: of which I have fuller spoken in Answer to Mr Tombs Praecursor. I know Mr Bl. thinks, that there may be an undissembled Profession, which yet may not be of a saving Faith. But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith, viz. of Assent and Consent. It will be a hard saying to many honest Christians to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article, and withal truly profess Repentance of all his sins, and to Take God for his Sovereign to Rule him, and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happiness; and to take Christ for his Lord and only Saviour, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the holy Ghost for his Guide and Sanctifier, and the rest which is essential to Christianity.

Pag. 192. he saith [All professed Christians, so called, are in an outward and single Covenant] 1. What? those that are called professed Christians, and are not? No: sure that's not the meaning: else mens miscalling might put them in Covenant. It is then those that are so, and are called so: But will it not serve, if they are so, unless called so? 2. He means either those that profess the name of Christianity, or the Thing. Of the insufficiency of the first, I spoke before. For the second, if they profess the whole Essence of Christianity undissembledly, I think they are truly Regenerate. If they profess but part (as to the Matter both of Assent and Consent, of which I spoke before in the Conclusions, and which we have in this County lately set down in our Profession of Faith) then it is not Christianity which they profess: for part of the essence is not the Thing: where an essential part is wanting, the form is absent. If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed, but Dissembledly; then as he is equivocally or analogically a Believer or Christian, so I yield he is a member of the Visible Church, which so far as it is only Visible, is equivocally called The Church: of which I have fullier spoken in Answer to Mr Tombes Praecursor. I know Mr Bl. thinks, that there may be an undissembled Profession, which yet may not be of a saving Faith. But then I yet conceive it is not an entire Profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith, viz. of Assent and Consent. It will be a hard saying to many honest Christians to say, that a man not justified may believe every fundamental Article, and withall truly profess Repentance of all his sins, and to Take God for his Soveraign to Rule him, and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happiness; and to take Christ for his Lord and only Saviour, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the holy Ghost for his Guide and Sanctifier, and the rest which is essential to Christianity.