A26882:152
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.
But I am grown such a Prodigal of my Reputation with Men of such a judging disposition, that I will cast away a little more of it on your Censure. The Scripture speaketh so much more of our Glory after the Resurrection, then before, and purposely keepeth us so low in our knowledge of the particular state of Souls before, and Calvin, (whom I suppose you take not for an Heretic) for all his Treatise against the sleep of Souls, did think the difference was so great between the state of the separated Souls, and that at the Resurrection, that I must profess my ignorance to be so great, that I am uncertain whether this first state do set all the blessed so high, as that no thought is consistent with it, that hath the least degree of suffering.
But I am grown such a Prodigal of my Reputation with Men of such a judging disposition, that I will cast away a little more of it on your Censure. The Scripture speaketh so much more of our Glory after the Resurrection, then before, and purposely keepeth us so low in our knowledge of the particular state of Souls before, and Calvin, (whom I suppose you take not for an Heretick) for all his Treatise against the sleep of Souls, did think the difference was so great between the state of the separated Souls, and that at the Resurrection, that I must profess my ignorance to be so great, that I am uncertain whether this first state do set all the blessed so high, as that no thought is consistent with it, that hath the least degree of suffering.
For, 1. I know that all Creatures are Passive. 2. If felicity be imperfect till the Resurrection, it must be privatively, or positively, or both. If privatively, how can I prove that nothing positive may concur, when privation is as bad. 3. I think that Protestants mostly agree, that Christs own Soul, while his Body was in the Grave, was in Paradise, in Joy, and yet in a state that was partly Penal, as it was a separation from the Body by death. And that all Souls in Heaven are happy, and yet in a state partly Penal in Heaven itself, as they are separated from the body, and short of the Resurrection: For not only the minute of dying, but the state of death is Penal, to a Soul that desireth a return to the body: And yet Heaven may be to it unconceivable felicity. I only hence conclude, that we must not take on us to know more than we do of