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

No Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward Covenant of Gods: And it is against the common reason and custom of men, that a second Covenant should be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the first Covenant, seeing right to Covenant and Seal go together: and if there must be another Covenant to give right to that, then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that, and another to that, and so in infinitum.

To the Antecedent, it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei, between the outward and the inward Covenant. It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised, whereof some are inward, and some outward: for though he explain not himself fully, yet I know no other sense that it will bear. It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal. For it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis. If therefore it have a Seal, it is either the same which is promised, or some other. Other I never heard of: they nowhere tell us what is the Seal of their outward Covenant. The same it cannot be: for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the Legacy it self, or the benefit given, and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby it is given.

Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform, is unsound: but such is Mr. Blake's, therefore.

Argu. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform, is unsound: but such is Mr. Blakes, therefore.