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

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 ⟨p. 53⟩Article in the Creed before Christs coming [Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins?] Besides, matter of faith is also matter of duty: for it is our duty to believe all these Truths. But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jesus the son of Mary was the Saviour, before he was Incarnate; or to believe that Christ was Dead, Ascended, &c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule, is not as you say the Only Rule of our Duty in Believing.

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, Assension, full Dominion in his humane nature? &c. Was this