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

2. For the second Exception, I must say, that many are mistaken in my way, in that they discern not the difference, 1. Between Necessary distinguishing and unnecessary. 2. Between Curiosity in the main Cause, and in the Means of discussing it. 3. Between curious Notions that are thrust on the Church and poor ignorant people, as Necessary and Certain; and such as we are forced to use with Learned men to discover their mistakes, and to expugne curiosity of Error or Uncertainty, by exactness of indagation, and as curious an explication of the Truth. I am somewhat confident that my curious distinguishing (as some call it) is but of the later sort, in all these respects. For example, In the present Controversy about the Instrumentality of faith to Justification, that which offendeth me is, that Divines should be so dangerously curious, as to make a Logical Notion of such Necessity, which Gods Word never used, nor for ought I know, the Church for many a hundred year; and which poor people cannot comprehend: Yea and that they may lay so much of the difference between us and the Papists on this point, ⟨image 14⟩thereby most dangerously hardening them, when they shall discover our Error; and occasion them to triumph over us, and to think, that the rest of our Doctrine is like this? And that this Instrumentality is still so contradistinguished from Merit, as if there were no third way of Faiths Interest in our Justification, but it must needs be the one or the other. Yea and the most Learned in the upshot fly to this, that Credere is not Agere, but Pati, and is but Actio Grammatica, or the name of Action, but Physically or hyperphysically a suffering. Is not here a curious Doctrine of Faith and Justification? If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it: Much more is it too fine for vulgar wits (as well as too false for lovers of the Truth.) In opposition to this, and in compassion of plain Christians, I only say, that faith is the Condition of our Justification; or that the reason why we are Justified by it (supposing its Object, and its Aptitude) is, because the Free Donor, Law-giver and Justifier will have it so, and hath designed it to this Office in his Promise or Testament. I think this is plain Doctrine, and fit for plain men.

2. For the second Exception, I must say, that many are mistaken in my way, in that they discern not the difference, 1. Between Necessary distinguishing and unnecessary. 2. Between Curiosity in the main Cause, and in the Means of discussing it. 3. Between curious Notions that are thrust on the Church and poor ignorant people, as Necessary and Certain; and such as we are forced to use with Learned men to discover their mistakes, and to expugne curiosity of Errour or Uncertainty, by exactness of indagation, and as curious an explication of the Truth. I am somewhat confident that my curious distinguishing (as some call it) is but of the later sort, in all these respects. For example, In the present Controversie about the Instrumentality of faith to Justification, that which offendeth me is, that Divines should be so dangerously curious, as to make a Logical Notion of such Necessity, which Gods Word never used, nor for ought I know, the Church for many a hundred year; and which poor people cannot comprehend: Yea and that they may lay so much of the difference between us and the Papists on this point,