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

Next Mr. Bl. proceeds there to tell us, that the Accepting the Word preached, is the note of the Church. But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former. Some call it an accepting the Word, when they are content to hear it: Some when they speculatively believe the truth of it. These are no true notes of true Christians, or Churches (in the first sense of the word Church.) Others Accept but part of that word, which is the necessary object of Faith, of whom the like may he said. It is the Accepting Christ and Life in him, offered by this word, which is Christianity it self, or true Faith: and the profession of this, is that which makes a man a Member of the Visible Church (He may accept it for his Infants also.) So much for the indagation of Mr. Bl's meaning about the description of his visible Christians.

Next, what he means by [Covenant] I confess I despair of knowing. Sometime he speaks as if he meant it but of their own act of Covenant, whereby they oblige themselves. But ordinarily, it is evident, that he speaks of a mutual Covenant, •nd makes God to be also in Covenant with them. But what Covenant of God is t•is? Pag. 192. He saith [they are in an outward and single Covenant.] But what he means by a single Covenant, I know not. He there also chooseth to express himself in Paraeus words, who distinguisheth inter beneficia foederis (which he denieth them) and Jus foederis (which he alloweth them.) But I confess I know not what Jus foederis is, except one of these two things: 1. A Right to enter Covenant with Christ: and so have Infidels. 2. Or a Right to the Benefits promised in the Covenant: and this he denieth them. If he meaneth (as Par•eus seems) a Right to be esteemed as Covenanters, and used as Covenanters, by the Church (though indeed God is not in Covenant with them) this we easily grant.