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

R. B. This dispute is so confused, and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it, (let men have made what use of yours they pleased) but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by, in your handling it. I think your meaning and mine is the same. 1. I not only said, (as you express) that the Seal is Gods, but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting. 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism, as well as another. 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making, why did you not tell us when or where you found it? and let us see as well as you, whence you had it, that we may know God made it. God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself, nor actu immanent: if he do it, it is only for us per actum transeuntem: and then it may be found in his word. But more of that anon. 4. I should think (though for illustration I judged it not unuseful) that it is of no necessity for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all, in the enquiry after the sealed proposition. If it be but one proposition, we may express it alone: If more, we may distinctly express them; rather then that shall breed any difference, I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more: Let us see what yours is.

R. B. THis dispute is so confused, and so much about words that I would not have meddled with it, (let men have made what use of yours they pleased) but only for some matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by, in your handling it. I think your meaning and mine is the same. 1. I not only said, (as you express) that the Seal is Gods, but gave my Reasons to prove a mutual Sealing as well as a mutual Covenanting. 2. What reason have you why I might not illustrate the matter by this Syllogism, as well as another. 3. If you will have a Syllogism of Gods making, why did you not tell us when or where you found it? and let us see as well as you, whence you had it, that we may know God made it. God doth not nectere Syllogismos for himself, nor actu immanente: if he do it, it is only for us per actum transeuntem: and then it may be found in his word. But more of that anon. 4. I should think (though for illustration I judged it not unuseful) that it is of no necessitie for you or me to talk of any Syllogism at all, in the enquiry after the sealed proposition. If it be but one proposition, we may express it alone: If more, we may distinctly express them; rather then that shall breed any difference, I care not whether my Syllogism be mentioned any more: Let us see what yours is.