A41330:227
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.
From other men I have heard other arguments: One I heard from a Learned Physician, who had it from Bishop Sparrow in a Sermon, and was much taken with the strength of it. Suppose, said he, their own prayers were better than the prayers of the Church, yet obedience is better than sacrifice. Saul's obedience had been more acceptable than the fat beasts he spared for sacrifice.
The strength of this argument let us see: Here is a King commanded to give obedience to God immediately, and that absolutely without any question. Our case is, we are called to give obedience to Superiors, but creatures; and that in such things which concern God immediately; ⟨p. 21⟩concerning which the Lord hath given us Commandments, to which all Superiors are as strictly bound, as that King was to Gods command. Shall not we then first try whether Creatures commands agree with the Creators commands? must not obedience to the Potter take place of obedience to the potsherd? if not, then Ephraim did well when he willingly obeyed the command of Jeroboam, Hos. 5.11. and Israel did well, 2 King. 17.8. in obeying the statutes of their Kings. Whence in matters of God we are bound to try all things; though the Commands be not sub codem gradu, yet if we suspect them to be sub codem genere, let us have leave to examine. But in short, were it not for God, we could with as much ease give obedience to mens commands as you can. But this instance is against the Bishop.
The strength of this argument let us see: Here is a King commanded to give obedience to God immediately, and that absolutely without any question. Our case is, we are called to give obedience to Superiours, but creatures; and that in such things which concern God immediately; ⟨p. 21⟩concerning which the Lord hath given us Commandments, to which all Superiours are as strictly bound, as that King was to Gods command. Shall not we then first try whether Creatures commands agree with the Creators commands? must not obedience to the Potter take place of obedience to the potsheard? if not, then Ephraim did well when he willingly obeyed the command of Jeroboam,