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

But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith, addeth by way of exclusion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ.] Where he seems to imply (though he express it not) that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full. But if so, then 1. It is much more then Assent, or a mere Historical Dogmatical faith. 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real, as to the Act, and suited to the Object? That is, the real choice of such a Christ as is offered, and on such terms? If so, it is Justifying faith. If not, either it is counterfeit as to the Act, or but nominal as to the Object, and is indeed no choosing of Christ. Though perhaps, it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object, yet to the Essentials it must, or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man.

But Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmatical faith, addeth by way of exclusion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ.] Where he seems to imply (though he express it not) that the faith which he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full. But if so, then 1. It is much more then Assent, or a meer Historical Dogmatical faith. 2. But is the choice which he intimateth Real, as to the Act, and suited to the Object? That is, the real choice of such a Christ as is offered, and on such terms? If so, it is Justifying faith. If not, either it is counterfeit as to the Act, or but nominal as to the Object, and is indeed no choosing of Christ. Though perhaps, it may not be suited to the Accidentals of the object, yet to the Essentials it must, or else it hath but equivocally the name as a corps hath the name of a man.

He saith, [The Covenant is the Ground of Baptism, otherwise Church-membership would evince no Title, &c.] Repl. 1. I take Gods precept to be the Ground of Baptism, as it is officium a Duty, both as to the baptizer and the baptized: and his Promise, or his Covenant Grant, to be the Ground of mens Right to it, as it is a Benefit given directly by God: and their own true consent, faith or covenanting (which with me are all one, for all that you say against it) to be the condition of that Right. But then I think that in foro Ecclesiae a dissembler may claim that Right which strictly he hath not, and we must grant him what he claims when he brings a Probable ground of his claim: And in that it is Ministers duty to Baptize such, they may indirectly, and quoad Ecclesiam be said to have Right to be Baptized. I say Indirectly, yea and improperly: for it is not the result of Gods Covenant Grant to them; but of his precept to his Ministers, and his Instructions, whom they ought to Baptize.