A26882:159
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.
Dear Brother, I will not aggravate your Error by its ill Consequences: But you and I tell the world, what need all men have of pardon in our mistakes, even when we are most confident.
Dear Brother, I will not aggravate your Errour by its ill Consequences: But you and I tell the world, what need all men have of pardon in our mistakes, even when we are most confident.
2. And as to your second affirmation, it is not true without limitation, [That submitting to a Law, on consideration of the Penalties, is so far a justifying its preceptive part, as not so great an evil as the Penal.]
This is confused work: The preceptive part of the Law is actus praecipientis, the Commanders Act; The instances before mentioned tell you that this may be obeyed for the Penalty sake, when yet the evil of the Command, or Law, is sinful, and so worse than the Penalty or Obedience, which are not sin: Forgive me for telling you that you should have distinguished the preceptive part of the Law from the matter Commanded by it, and the evil of the Law and Law-maker, from the evil of the Obeyer; and then only have concluded that he that obeyeth a Precept only to avoid the Penalty, professeth the Penalty to be worse then his Act of Obedience. But he doth not make it worse then the Law, or the Lawmakers sin.
This is confused work: The pr•ceptive part of the Law is actus praecipientis, the Commanders Act; The instances before mentioned tell you that this may be obeyed for the Penalty sake, when yet the evil of the Command, or Law, is sinful, and so worse than the Penalty or Obedience, which are not sin: Forgive me for telling you that you should have distinguished the preceptive part of the Law from the matter Commanded by it, and the evil of the Law and Law-maker, from the evil of the Obeyer; and then only have concluded that he that obeyeth a Precept only to avoid the Penalty, professeth the Penalty to be worse then his Act of Obedience. But he doth not make it worse then the Law, or the Lawmakers sin.