A26882:198
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.
Pag. 19. I said of our late overturnings in England, that all this is publicly known: Many late Volumes on both sides record it: were it but Whitlock's Memorials, it were enough: The Nations ring of it (and I have oft lamented it heretofore) and you mistaking all this, feign me to say, that the passages debated in Dr. Owens Papers, and his words, were all known before; and so bestow many reproofs upon a fiction of your own.
Pag. 19. I said of our late overturnings in England, that all this is publickly known: Many late Volumes on both sides record it: were it but Whitlocks Memorials, it were enough: The Nations ring of it (and I have ost lamented it heretofore) and you mistaking all this, seign me to say, that the passages debated in Dr. Owens Papers, and his words, were all known before; and so bestow many reproofs upon a fiction of your own.
Pag. 20. You would put such terms upon me in dispute, a Veron devised to put on the Protestants. I must oppose his Doctrine only as in the Syllables written▪ Accidentals in Worship, signify ⟨p. 32⟩you think at least an Integral Part. Doth [in] turn Accidents into parts? Are Accidents parts, because Inherent?] Are not your Quality, Quantities, Immanent Acts, Passions, &c. inherent? Is not Kneeling, putting off the Hat, Methods, Translations, Metre, Tunes, &c. in the Worship of God? And is it unlawful, because in it? If it be therefore a part of Worship, you must conclude that either all these are unlawful, or that it's lawful for men to make parts of Gods Worship.
Pag. 20. You would put such terms upon me in dispute, a Veron devised to put on the Protestants. I must oppose his Doctrine only as in the Syllables written▪ Accidentals in Worship, signify ⟨p. 32⟩you think at least an Integral Part. Doth [in] turn Accidents into parts? Are Accidents parts, because Inherent?] Are not your Quality, Quantities, Immanent Acts, Passions, &c. inherent? Is not Kneeting, putting off the Hat, Methods, Translations, Meeter, Tunes, &c. in the Worship of God? And is it unlawful, because in it? If it be therefore a part of Worship, you must conclude that either all these are unlawful, or that it's lawful for men to make parts of Gods Worship.