A26882:217
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.
Answ. 1. The Scripture is Gods own Word: A mis-translation maketh that to be his word that is not; which sure is a tenderer matter than in what words we speak our own minds to God. •ure a depravation of Scripture is more than a Ceremony: Were Liturgies such an alteration of Gods own words, you would more plausibly accuse them. One that said, God said this or that, which he said not, was worse tha• one that spake his own words undecently to God. To say, this is Gods word, which i• not, is indeed adding to it; but so it is not to speak words as our own. How much the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, how many Verses it leaveth out, how many additions and alterations it maketh, is commonly known. Christs and the Apostles use of this, was no approbation of its faults, much less their presence in the Synagogues▪ when others read Moses and the Prophets in them. And the Psalms in the Septuagint▪ Translation were part of their Liturgy. For man to speak faultily is no wonder: It hath a more plausible pretence for Separation, to say that men corrupt the word of God. And yet when it is but such an Effect of Humane Imperfection, it is no just pretence.
Answ. 1. The Scripture is Gods own Word: A mis-translation maketh that to be his word that is not; which sure is a tenderer matter than in what words we speak our own minds to God. •ure a depravation of Scripture is more than a Ceremony: Were Lyturgies such an alteration of Gods own words, you would more plausibly accuse them. One that said, God said this or that, which he said not, was worse tha• one that spake his own words undecently to God. To say, this is Gods word, which i• not, is indeed adding to it; but so it is not to speak words as our own. How much the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, how many Verses it leaveth out, how many additions and alterations it maketh, is commonly known. Christs and the Apostles use of this, was no approbation of its faults, much less their presence in the Synagogues▪ when others read Moses and the Prophets in them. And the Psalms in the Septuagint▪ Translation were part of their Lyturgy. For man to speak faultily is no wonder: It hath a more plausible pretence for Separation, to say that men corrupt the word of God. And yet when it is but such an Effect of Humane Imperfection, it is no just pretence.