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

The Major of all these three Arguments is further proved, thus: No man is professedly a Christian that professeth not to Accept of Christ as Christ (or to believe in Christ as Christ) But no man doth profess to take Christ as Christ that professeth not to take or accept him as a Priest, Teacher and King: Ergo. &c.

The Major is plain in it self, The Minor is as plain, it being essential to Christ to be the Priest, Prophet and King. And from these essentials related to us and accepted by us, doth our own denomination of Christians arise. And that a bare Assent without Acceptance doth not make any one a Christian, is past doubt, and shall be further spoke to anon. If Baptism then be commonly called our Christening and so be our entrance solemnly into the Christian state, then it is not to be given to them that are not Christians so much as by Profession: but that Mr. Blake's Professor of another species of Faith is no Christian so much as by Profession, I doubt not is here proved.

And furthermore, If a Faith defective in the Assenting part, about the Essentials of its Object, serve not to denominate a man justly a Christian; then a faith defective in the Consenting or Accepting part about the Essentials of the Object, serveth not to denominate a man a Christian: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. By [Defective] I mean not only in the matter of perfection of degree, but that wanteth the very Act it self.