A41330:181
The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner,…
The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entitled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templars sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.
London: printed for Tho. Cockerill, 1681
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
2ly. And I pray give a reason why we may not as well say Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, &c. as well as Clemens Romanus, Polycarpus, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, &c? which Authors I ⟨p. 15⟩see seldom put the Epithet Saint to them. Ignatius in one Epistle six times calls him Paul without Saint. Sometimes I have met with [Greek or Hebrew], sometimes [Greek or Hebrew], but not with [Greek or Hebrew], so commonly; though I do not deny but they may use that Epithet too, and I not see it. But did these Fathers forbear this word Saint, so as not (at least always) as you do to use it, because they would not displease their good Dames and Masters? or was it because the art of Canonizing by the Triple-Crown was not then known as it is now? with whom it seems, as in other things you are pleased to symbolize, so in this.
2ly. And I pray give a reason why we may not as well say Mathew, Mark, Luke, Paul, &c. as well as Clemens Romanus, Polycarpus, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, &c? which Authors I ⟨p. 15⟩see seldom put the Epithete Saint to them. Ignatius in one Epistle six times calls him Paul without Saint. Sometimes I have met with 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, sometimes 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, but not with 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, so commonly; though I do not deny but they may use that Epithere too, and I not see it. But did these Fathers forbear this word Saint, so as not (at least always) as you do to use it, because they would not displease their good Dames and Masters? or was it because the art of Canonizing by the Triple-Crown was not then known as it is now? with whom it seems, as in other things you are pleased to symbolize, so in this.
The next Head are their Reasons why these Forms must be imposed. Now as to all their Humane reasons in these cases concerning God. I shall not much weigh them. For there is no man will set up his Inventions in Gods Worship without Reasons; Jeroboam will not set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, but he hath his Reasons, 1 King 12.26, 27, 28, &c. He is a fool indeed that hath no reason to give for his act.