A26882:39
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.
15. You do not defend [That the Liturgic Worship was in its first Contrivance, and is in its continuance, an Invention, or Engine to defeat, or render useless the promise of Christ to his Church, of sending the Spirit in all Ages to enable it to the due discharge, and performance of all Divine Worship in its Assemblies, and therefore unlawful to be complied with. That the very being and continuance of the Church, without which it is but a dead Machine, lieth on this.
15. You do not defend [That the Lyturgick Worship was in its first Contrivance, and is in its continuance, an Invention, or Engine to defeat, or render useless the promise of Christ to his Church, of sending the Spirit in all Ages to enable it to the due discharge, and performance of all Divine Worship in its Assemblies, and therefore unlawful to be complyed with. That the very being and continuance of the Church, without which it is but a dead Machine, lyeth on this.
Doth this speak only of the English Liturgy, which is not 200 years old, think you? When next he tells us, that [ It's the way of Worship by a prescribed Liturgy, and that it was insensibly brought in (when in several Ages the Church had lived without it) and that to render the promise of Christ, and the work of the Holy Ghost in the Administration of gifts useless.
Doth this speak only of the English Lyturgy, which is not 200 years old, think you? When next he tells us, that [ It's the way of Worship by a prescribed Lyturgy, and that it was insensibly brought in (when in several Ages the Church had lived without it) and that to render the promise of Christ, and the work of the Holy Ghost in the Administration of gifts useless.
16. You defend not that [Hence followed a total neglect of all the Spirits Gifts in the said Administration—Nor that [This produced all the Enmity—of the said work of the Spirit, which the world is now filled withal—that it ariseth from hence alone. Nor that the Worship Treated about, consists wholly in the Institutions, and on the Authority of Men, and therefore is false Worship—and to renounce the Kingly Office of Christ in the Church.