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

Doth not the Law of nature, as well as the positive Law, determine de Debito paenae, as well as de Debito officii? and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty. 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature, is that the only Rule? 1. What say you for matter ⟨p. 52⟩of duty, to the positive Precepts of the Gospel? of Baptism, the Lords Supper, the Lords day, the Officers and Government of the Church, &c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these? If you say, They are reducible to the second Commandment: I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part, but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution? And doth this alone suffice? Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship? 2. Do you take the Precept de genere, to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus? or to be a sufficient Rule without them? If the Moral Law, or Law of Nature, be to you, the only Rule, and a perfect Rule, then you need no other. And if God had only written the ten Commandments, or only said in general, [Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions] would it have been your duty to have Baptized, administered the Lords Supper? &c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty? If not (as nothing more certain) then the general Law, is not the only Rule, nor sufficient in omni part (though sufficient in suo genere, & ad partem propriam) for the constitution of Worship, Ordinances, Church, Offices, &c. or acquainting us with our duty therein. Moreover, did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers, do any more then was done before, or not? If no more, 1. It is superfluous. 2. Show where it was done before. 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first. If more, then the former was not sufficient, nor is now the only Rule.

Doth not the Law of nature, as well as the positive Law, determine de Debito paenae, as well as de Debito officii? and is a Rule of punishment as well as duty. 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature, is that the only Rule? 1. What say you for matter ⟨p. 52⟩of duty, to the positive Precepts of the Gospel? of Baptism, the Lords Supper, the Lords day, the Officers and Government of the Church, &c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for these? If you say, They are reducible to the second Commandment: I demand 1. What is the second Commandment for the Affirmative part, but a general precept to worship God according to his Positive Institution? And doth this alone suffice? Doth it not plainly imply that there are and must be positive Laws instituting a way of worship? 2. Do you take the Precept de genere, to be equivalent to the Precepts de speciebus? or to be a sufficient Rule without them? If the Moral Law, or Law of Nature, be to you, the only Rule, and a perfect Rule, then you need no other. And if God had only written the ten Commandments, or only said in general, [Thou shalt worship God according to his positive Institutions] would it have been your duty to have Baptized, administred the Lords Supper? &c. Doth the general Precept constitute this particular Ordinance as my duty? If not (as nothing more certain) then the general Law, is not the only Rule, nor sufficient in omni parte (though sufficient in suo genere, & ad partem propriam) for the constitution of Worship, Ordinances, Church, Offices, &c. or acquainting us with our duty therein. Moreover, did Christ in Instituting these Ordinances and Officers, do any more then was done before, or not? If no more, 1. It is superfluous. 2. Shew where it was done before. 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the seventh day of the week and the first. If more, then the former was not sufficient, nor is now the only Rule.