A26864:379
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. Having said thus much of Gods act of promise or Covenant, and seen how far the wicked may be said to be under that promise or Covenant, we must next consider of their own promise to God, or the act of Covenanting on their own part. Mans Covenanting with God, or his entering the Covenant of God propounded to him, is either 1. to be considered in respect of the efficient; 2. or of the object. As to the efficient, it is either 1. The act of the whole man▪ i.e. of ⟨p. 62⟩mind and body: 2. Or of part only: and that 1. either of the mind alone: 2. or of the outward man alone. 2. Objectively considered, it is either 1. A true proper consent agreeable to the formal object (or to the object in its absolute necessary respects and nature.) 2. Or it is an imperfect consent, analogically or equivocally called [Covenanting] when it is not suited to the formal nature of the object. This error is 1. About the object simply in it self considered. 2. About the object comparatively considered: as God compared with the creature. And both or either of these errors is 1. Either in the intellect: when it doth not understand the nature of the object, and Gods terms on which only he offers his blessings; or at least doth not practically understand it, but speculatively only. 2. Or of the Will: when it doth not really consent to the object, and terms of God, though they be understood, at least, speculatively. 3. Or it is, both the error of the understanding and the will.
2. Having said thus much of Gods act of promise or Covenant, and seen how far the wicked may be said to be under that promise or Covenant, we must next consider of their own promise to God, or the act of Covenanting on their own part. Mans Covenanting with God, or his entring the Covenant of God propounded to him, is either 1. to be considered in respect of the efficient; 2. or of the object. As to the efficient, it is either 1. The act of the whole man▪ i.e. of ⟨p. 62⟩minde and body: 2. Or of part only: and that 1. either of the minde alone: 2. or of the outward man alone. 2. Objectively considered, it is either 1. A true proper consent agreeable to the formall object (or to the object in its absolute necessary respects and nature.) 2. Or it is an imperfect consent, analogically or equivocally called [Covenanting] when it is not suited to the formall nature of the object. This errour is 1. About the object simply in it self considered. 2. About the object comparatively considered: as God compared with the creature. And both or either of these errours is 1. Either in the intellect: when it doth not understand the nature of the object, and Gods terms on which only he offers his blessings; or at least doth not practically understand it, but speculatively only. 2. Or of the Will: when it doth not really consent to the object, and terms of God, though they be understood, at least, speculatively. 3. Or it is, both the errour of the understanding and the will.