A26882:199
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. 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.
2. Are all things duly belonging to it, parts of it? I believe you own none of this your self.
Pag. 21. The Doctors 7th Argument was, that this [practice condemneth the suffering Saints of the present age, rendering them false Witnesses of God.] I answered; [Let us not stand to any dividing Principle, or Cause, lest the Saints be blamed, that have fathered it in God.] I used the word [Saints] but as repeating his own phrase: And this you make to have better become the Observator. Is not this partiality? May the Argument use a term which the answerer may not repeat? And, dear Brother, is it not a sad case, if among the many ill causes fathered on God, any, or all of them should say, [We must not repent, or amend, lest we be blamed as false Witnesses of God.