A26882:133
Catholic communion doubly defended by Dr. Owens, vindicator, and Richard Baxter and the state…Catholick communion doubly defended by Dr. Owens, vindicator, and Richard Baxter and the state…
Catholic communion doubly defended by Dr. Owens, vindicator, and Richard Baxter and the state of that communion opened, and the questions discussed, whether there be any displeasure at sin, or repentance for it in Heaven : with a parallel of the case of using a faulty translation of Scripture, and a faulty liturgy.Catholick communion doubly defended by Dr. Owens, vindicator, and Richard Baxter and the state of that communion opened, and the questions discussed, whether there be any displeasure at sin, or repentance for it in Heaven : with a parallel of the case of using a faulty translation of Scripture, and a faulty lyturgy.
London: printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1684
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.
I said in a Book [There is not such a thing as grief or sorrow known in Heaven.] The Vindicator citeth this as if it were contrary to, [There is no sorrow, but displeasure and repentance:] If he mean not that [no sorrow, and no sorrow] are Contradictions, he need to have gone no further then the present sentence for it. And if he had proved that [no sorrow,] and Displicence, or Repentance are Contradictions, he would have done that against the Scripture itself, which he intended not, nor can do.
He hath prevented my labour in transcribing other Authors that use [Greek or Hebrew] and [Greek or Hebrew] usually for a mere change of the mind, purpose, and practice, without any signification of sorrow, and he appealeth to Scripture use of the words: But is there any thing besides sorrow, that by all his words he labours to exclude? And did not I expressly exclude it: And yet is this Reverend man thus puzzled at this as a dangerous Doctrine? Doth he attempt in one syllable to blame any thing but the word? When I excluded his misliked sense? And he will not deny the ordinary use of the word as without sorrow? But let us willingly take the Scripture use: ⟨p. 24⟩which speaketh of Repentance in Heaven, and on Earth. It is not Repentance on Earth that we have now to treat of: And do you think its a good Argument that there is no Repentance in Heaven without sorrow, because there is none on Earth without it? But even on Earth, Repentance is either the Act of the Intellect, and Will, alone, or an Act of these joined with divers Passions. It is sometime so largely taken, that the Passions of grief, shame, and fear, and specially anger against our selves, are parts of it: But in all common Authors, and ordinary use, and even in Scripture, it is taken for the change of Mind and Will, the Passions being but effects, or concomitants of it. To Repent, in the common and prime sense, is but to change our Mind and Will, and wish we had not done what we did. When a thing was well done of us, and yet sped not well, we repent and wish we had not done it for the sake of the event: but we blame not our selves for the Act, nor grieve for that, but for the event. But usually we have cause of Sorrow, as well as of Repentance, and must join them together. But where the Gospel frequently promiseth Repentance, pardon, and life together, and Preacheth both Repenting and Believing in order to present joy, there is little mention of the sorrow in the Converts, save for the murdering of Christ, or some great sin. And Sorrow, and Repenting are distinguished in Scripture as two things,