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

R. B. 1. I Was at first doubtful, lest by the Law you had meant (as the Lutherans) a Law of God in general, as opposed to the Gospel as being no Law: and that you had meant by the Law, only the Moral Precepts, which is but the matter of the Law of Nature or of Works, or of the Law of Grace (in some respect). But I perceive that you mean the entire Law, both Precept and Sanction, by your mentioning the Sentence of it. If therefore you do by the Law mean but one Species, viz. the Law of Nature, acknowledging the new Law of Grace (commonly called the New Covenant, from the Promise which is the most eminent part) to be a Law too, then I agree with you in this solution as to the matter of Perfection; or else not. And yet I dare not hold that the New Law commandeth no more then its Condition. But for them that use the word Covenant for nothing but the bare Promise, I must tell them, that it is but a piece of Gods Law or Instrument, separated from the body which they fasten a Name upon: and if they will signify so much, that it is but part of the Redeemers Law of Grace, which they call a Covenant, and will give another name to the whole, that so we may understand them, I would not willingly quarrel with them about words. But if it be the thing as well as the name that they err in, affirming that the Gospel is a mere Promise, and that God hath no Law but one, and that one the Law of Works; or else that all his Precepts Natural and Positive, are one Law by themselves as distinct from the Sanctions, when Precepts are but part of Gods Laws, which by their Sanctions are specified and distinguished (as most think into two sorts, of Nature and of Grace; but as Camero thinks into three sorts, of Nature, & of Jewish works, & of Grace) then I not only profess my dissent, but do esteem the former error very dangerous and intolerable; and the later, such as tendeth to great confusion in the body of Theology.