A26882:17
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.
2. I thank you that you say, p. 3. [I do not pretend in what follows to maintain against you that it is unlawful to use a form of Prayer, or comply with an imposed Liturgy, or under some circumstances to join in the use of ours in Worship.] Neither shall I undertake to justify altogether the 12 Arguments you have printed as Dr. Owens, in order to refuting them.
2. I thank you that you say, p. 3. [I do not pretend in what follows to maintain against you that it is unlawful to use a form of Prayer, or comply with an imposed Lyturgy, or under some circumstances to joyn in the use of ours in Worship.] Neither shall I undertake to justify altogether the 12 Arguments you have printed as Dr. Owens, in order to refuting them.
3. I am pleased that you expound the Doctors words, p. 24. as signifying only, [It is not lawful for us to go and join in public Worship by the Common-Prayer,] He doth not say it is not lawful for any: and for ought you know this [Us] whom he concerned in it, might be a very few to whom this Manuscript was imparted, and they might be under such circumstances as your own resolutions oft in Print would discharge from that Worship as a duty.]
3. I am pleased that you expound the Doctors words, p. 24. as signifying only, [It is not lawful for us to go and joyn in publick Worship by the Common-Prayer,] He doth not say it is not lawful for any: and for ought you know this [Us] whom he concerned in it, might be a very few to whom this Manuscript was imparted, and they might be under such circumstances as your own resolutions oft in Print would discharge from that Worship as a duty.]
Were I never so well able to prove from this, and the Doctors many printed Writings, that he meant more, I would not now do it. I only here desire the Men and Women that have been with me, and profest that they thought the Doctors 12 Arguments to be unanswerable against