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

I distinguish between the Real Operations and Mutations on mans soul, by Objects; and the Conveyance of Right to several Benefits by the Covenant of God. It is not the former that I speak of in that place. I confess that as the Apprehension of one of Gods Attributes, makes one effect on the soul, and the apprehension of another makes another effect, so the apprehension of Christs Kingdom, Righteousness, Death, Obedience, Intercession, Judgement, &c. do make also their several Impressions according to the Nature of the thing apprehended. But I utterly deny that it is so in Conveying Right to these, as much as I deny that Justification is Sanctification, or a Real Change of our Qualities as it is. This therefore is my Argument: If the Apprehension of Christs Righteousness, and no other Act, should strictly be the Justifying Act of Faith, and that eo nomine, because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our Justification, then it would follow, 1. That the Apprehension of nothing else is the Justifying Act. 2. And that we have Right to every other particular Mercy eo nomine, because we apprehend that Mercy, and so our Right to every particular Benefit of Christ, were Received by a distinct Act of Faith, But the Consequent is false. Therefore so is the Antecedent.

I distinguish between the Real Operations and Mutations on mans soul, by Objects; and the Conveyance of Right to several Benefits by the Covenant of God. It is not the former that I speak of in that place. I confess that as the Apprehension of one of Gods Attributes, makes one effect on the soul, and the apprehension of another makes another effect, so the apprehension of Christs Kingdome, Righteousness, Death, Obedience, Intercession, Judgement, &c. do make also their several Impressions according to the Nature of the thing apprehended. But I utterly deny that it is so in Conveying Right to these, as much as I deny that Justification is Sanctification, or a Real Change of our Qualities as it is. This therefore is my Argument: If the Apprehension of Christs Righteousness, and no other Act, should strictly be the Justifying Act of Faith, and that eo nomine, because it is the object of that apprehension which is the matter of our Justification, then it would follow, 1. That the Apprehension of nothing else is the Justifying Act. 2. And that we have Right to every other particular Mercy eo nomine, because we apprehend that Mercy, and so our Right to every particular Benefit of Christ, were Received by a distinct Act of Faith, But the Consequent is false. Therefore so is the Antecedent.