A26864:414
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.
As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money, and doing work, had I used such instances, what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in justification? you should have considered, that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay, and to labour, but to receive. 2. nor is it onely de suturo, but de praesenti: A consent to have Christ ⟨p. 83⟩for our Lord, Redeemer, Saviour, Head and Husband in present and for the time to come, though the very relation consented to, doth indeed oblige us to the future duties of that Relation. By this time, I leave it to the Reader to judge, who it is that introduced confusion about the Covenant, and whether this be an error of the lower size?
As for your instances of the Covenant of paying money, and doing work, had I used such instances, what should I have heard from those men that already charge me with giving too much to works in •ustification? you should have considered, that our Covenant 1. is not principally to pay, and to labor, but to receive. 2. nor is it onely de suturo, but de praesenti: A consent to have Christ ⟨p. 83⟩for our Lord, Redeemer, Saviour, Head and Husband in present and for the time to come, though the very relation consented to, doth indeed oblige us to the future duties of that Relation. By this time, I leave it to the Reader to judge, who it is that introduced confusion about the Covenant, and whether this be an error of the lower size?
As for that you add, that then there is no Covenant-breaking; I Reply, 1. Q•oad essentiam & possibilitatem there is. 2. Quoad existentiam, there is a breaking of mere Verbal and of Erring half Covenants, But if you think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broken, then you are against the certainty of perseverance. As for the texts you cite, I say 1. The Israelites broke Gods commands, which are called his Covenants. 2. They broke their particular Covenants, about reforming Idolatry and such particular sins. 3. They broke their Verbal and equivocal Covenant or Promise to God, whereby they seemed to Accept him on his terms, but did not; and therefore had not his obligation again to them, but yet thereby obliged themselves.