A26882:153
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.
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 ⟨p. 27⟩separate Souls, nor to make a measure or manner of blessedness for them of our own heads, nor to apply every Text to them that is spoken of the state after the Resurrection: There is enough besides to feast our joyful hopes.
IV. Some few other practical Doctrines we differ about, as where pag. 30. you say [I doubt not to affirm that doing that which a Law requires, so far as the intention is moved by the Law, is a justifying of it. And submitting to any Law on the consideration of its Penalties, is so far a justifying its preceptive part, as not so great an evil as the Penal.]
Ans. I first premise that this is little or nothing to the Cause I pleaded for: For whereas you say [None that I know of say it is a duty simply, or without any dependence or human Sanction.] I have largely told you that taking public Communion to be but do facto, what it is, and the Liturgy as commonly used, I take it to be a duty to hold such Communion (where no better at least is) though there were no human Sanction, but voluntary Concord; and this by virtue of Gods great Commands of glorifying him with one mind and mouth in Unity, Love, and Peace; not an immutable duty, but a duty rebus sic stantibus. It is in obedience to Gods Commands more than Mens, that I have gone to the Parish Churches; and would have gone as much, if the Law had not commanded it, but only had deprived me of better.