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

Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons, why [He is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] He saith [I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the moral Law; that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Rep. Sed distinguendum est. The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction (and that either as it is the mere Law of nature, or as containing also what to Adam was superadded) or else it is taken only for the mere preceptive part of a Law, which is not the whole Law. In the later sense, it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam. 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses. 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now used by Christ the Mediator, as part of his own Law. 2. We must distinguish of a Rule. 1. There is the Rule of obedience, or what shall be due from us: This is the precept (under which I comprehend the prohibition, it being but praeceptu•• non agendis.) 2. There is the Rule of reward, determining what shall be due to us: This is the conditional promise or gift, so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio. 3. There is the Rule of punishment, determining what shall be due to man upon his sin: This is the threatening. 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment, and of judging to whom they do belong, determining on what conditions or terms on their parts, men shall be saved, or else damned; (though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties, yet to constitute them conditions of the promise, is a further thing.) This is the promise and threatening, as they are conditional, or as they constitute their own conditions. I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions, is beyond Dispute. These things being thus, 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule, when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law? and who knows what you mean? 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears, that you, even you, should so wholly own this, and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule? For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only (as I think you do:) 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature:

Let us next peruse Mr. Blake's Reasons, why [He is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] He saith [I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the morall Law; that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Rep. Sed distinguendum est. The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works consisting of Precept and Sanction (and that either as it is the meer Law of nature, or as containing also what to Adam was superadded) or else it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law, which is not the whole Law. In the later sense, it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam. 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moses. 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now used by Christ the Mediator, as part of his own Law. 2. We must distinguish of a Rule. 1. There is the Rule of obedience, or what shall be due from us: This is the precept (under which I comprehend the prohibition, it being but praeceptu non agendis.) 2. There is the Rule of reward, determining what shall be due to us: This is the conditional promise or gift, so far forth as it determineth de ipso praemio. 3. There is the Rule of punishment, determining what shall be due to man upon his sin: This is the threatning. 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punishment, and of judging to whom they do belong, determining on what conditions or terms on their parts, men shall be saved, or else damned; (though the same acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties, yet to constitute them conditions of the promise, is a further thing.) This is the promise and threatning, as they are conditional, or as they constitute their own conditions. I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions, is beyond Dispute. These things being thus, 1. What confusion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule, when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law? and who knows what you mean? 2. How strange a thing is it to my ears, that you, even you, should so wholly own this, and so heartily profess that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule? For suppose you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only (as I think you do:) 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature: