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

3. For the thing it self, if I may shoot my bolt, upon a shorter deliberation, I conceive, that all your difference with the men of that Judgement, is occasioned by the Ambiguity and various acception of the word Covenant of Grace, which in my judgement, you ought to have removed, by distinguishing, before you had argued against their opinion. The term Covenant of Grace, is sometime taken strictly for the Contract alone; either 1. for the full Contract, which is mutual or by both parties, which is most properly called a Covenant: Or 2. for the engagement of one part only: 1. either for Gods Promise. 2. or mans. Herein the Condition is implied, not as commanded, but as tendered. Now it is certain that taking the Covenant in this restrained sense, it doth not command Perfection of obedience, for it commands nothing at all: nor doth it propound it as the Condition, for then we were undone. But then it must be known ⟨p. 145⟩that this is too restrained a sense for us ordinarily to use the word Covenant in; God hath made no such Covenant with us, which is not a Law in one respect, as well as a Covenant in another: He lays not by his Sovereignty in Covenanting. Nay they are all more properly called Laws then Covenants: Even the Promise it self is most properly Lex Gratiae Remedians, Like an act of Oblivion or Pardon to a Nation of Rebels. Yet comparatively, the Law of Grace is far more fitly called a Covenant then the Law of Nature (which perhaps is never so called in Scripture), because the Promissory part is the predominant part in the Law of Grace, the precept being but subservient to that; but the preceptive part is most predominant in the Law of nature; the Promise being not so much as expressed by Moses, and obscure in nature it self, so that it will hold great dispute, whether God were obliged at all to Reward man with heavenly Glory, yea or any proper Reward (besides non-punishment which is improperly a Reward). The Lutherans are the leaders of that evil custom and conceit of denying the Gospel to be a Law. 2. In the next place therefore the word Covenant of Grace is taken for the New Law, containing Precept, Prohibition, Promise and Threatening. And here it is taken 1. so narrowly as to comprise only the Precept of Believing, with the Promise and Threatening annexed, as being indeed the principal parts▪ 2.

3. For the thing it self, if I may shoot my bolt, upon a shorter deliberation, I conceive, that all your difference with the men of that Judgement, is occasioned by the Ambiguity and various acception of the word Covenant of Grace, which in my judgement, you ought to have removed, by distinguishing, before you had argued against their opinion. The term Covenant of Grace, is sometime taken strictly for the Contract alone; either 1. for the full Contract, which is mutual or by both parties, which is most properly called a Covenant: Or 2. for the engagement of one part only: 1. either for Gods Promise. 2. or mans. Herein the Condition is implyed, not as commanded, but as tendred. Now it is certain that taking the Covenant in this restrained sense, it doth not command Perfection of obedience, for it commands nothing at all: nor doth it propound it as the Condition, for then we were undone. But then it must be known