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

2. I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone, is not a sufficient Rule to us now for believing in Jesus Christ; no nor the same Law of nature, as still in force under Christ. For a general command of believing all that God reveal […], is not the only Rule of our faith; but the particular revelation and precept are part. And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation, is not the only Rule, but that particular prescript is part. And a general command of receiving every offered benefit, is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ, without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits.

2. I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone, is not a sufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ; no nor the same Law of nature, as still in force under Christ. For a general command of beleeving all that God revea• 〈…〉, is not the only Rule of our faith; but the particular revelation and precept are part. And a general command to submit to what way God shall prescribe for our justification and salvation, is not the only Rule, but that particular prescript is part. And a general command of receiving every offered benefit, is not the only or sufficient Rule for receiving Christ, without the Gospel-offer of him and his benefits.

3. And I suppose you grant that as mans soul hath an understanding and a will, the former being a passage to the later, in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect, and in the later perfected; so Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occasions of them, oft times; and so the Laws of God have their Narratives, Histories and Doctrines, concerning the grounds, the subject, the occasion, &c. as well as the more essential parts, viz. Precepts and Sanction. These I spoke not of before in the distinctions. Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature, or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law, is the sufficient and only Rule of Knowledge, Judgement and Faith? I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the assenting act of faith to be in the understanding: and that the Word of God is the rule of this assent. Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law, a sufficient and only Rule for your faith, in the Article of Christs Incarnation, Birth, Life, Innocency, Miracles, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, full Dominion in his humane nature? &c. Was this