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

R. B. This is a Point of so great moment in my eyes, that I resolve to begin with it. I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions, and not de Substantia rei: But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads, according to the true importance of your expressions, may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on: And that not per accidens, but from its proper nature; supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal. I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against; and I am glad to find you so little in love with it, as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered: For now I rest assured that you will not be offended, when here or hereafter, I shall open your guiltiness of it; and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure. These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise, before I can give a clear answer to your words.

R. B. THis is a Point of so great moment in my eyes, that I resolve to begin with it. I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions, and not de Substantia rei: But I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads, according to the true importance of your expressions, may do more against their salvation then is yet well thought on: And that not per accidens, but from its proper nature; supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal. I am no friend to the confusion that you here speak against; and I am glad to find you so little in love with it, as to pass your judgement that it is not to be suffered: For now I rest assured that you will not be offended, when here or hereafter, I shall open your guiltiness of it; and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure. These two or three necessary distinctions I must first here premise, before I can give a clear answer to your words.

1. I distinguish still between constitutive Justification or Remission by the Gospel grant or Covenant, called by most Justificatio Juris, and Justification per sententiam Judicis. 2. I distinguish between constitutive Legal Justification as begun, and as continued or consummate. 3. Between the Physical operation of Christ and his Benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi, as an intelligible species; and the moral conveyance of Right to Christ and his Benefits, which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation. 4. Between these two questions, What justifieth ex parte Christi? and What justifieth, or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris? 5. Between the true efficient causes of our Justification, and the mere condition, sine qua non, & cum quâ. 6. Between Christs Meriting mans Justification, and his actual justifying him, by constitution or sentence.