A41330:3
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.
THE Reader may please to take notice, that this Discourse was drawn up long before (now) Doctor Falkner took his Degree, else I had given him his Title. And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written.
To the Reverend, and my much Honoured Brother, Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Pauls.
SIR,
I Hope it is no offence unto you, though you be a Dean, 1that I call you Brother, since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably, calling us Dissenting Brethren; this is better language than Sots, Rogues, Fools, Knaves, Rebels, Schismatics, which we read and hear from others. As for Rebels, if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws, I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects. He hath Laws against Drunkenness, Swearing, Whoring, Sabbath breaking, and these are agreeable to the Law of God, (besides Laws about Hares, Partridges, Pheasants, and against Papists, &c.) we see men can live in opposition to these Laws, yet these are not called Rebels. But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God, concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws, to which all Princes and men are bound, and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable, (as we shall hear your self speak presently) but that conformity we cannot see, and therefore dare not assent and consent, &c. now we are called Rebels, Schismatics, and what not?