A41330:387
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.
But for the two former we expect this Author to tell us where we shall find those two general Laws.
That common Evasion, Though these things be not according to the word, yet they are not contrary to the word, will not serve the turn. Yea this Author quite overthrows that distinction.
For he tell us, Our Governors particular Laws must be according to, and agreeable to the general Law of God.
For he tell us, Our Governours particular Laws must be according to, and agreeable to the general Law of God.
A Law is a positive thing, so are Governors particular Laws, then so must the general Law be. To say not contrary to the word, what Law is this? Non ens is no Law. How can these particular Laws be said to be according to the Law, and agreeable with the Law, when no such Law can be found? If the Law can be found, then that distinction is but vain.
A Law is a positive thing, so are Governours particular Laws, then so must the general Law be. To say not contrary to the word, what Law is this? Non ens is no Law. How can these particular Laws be said to be according to the Law, and agreeable with the Law, when no such Law can be found? If the Law can be found, then that distinction is but vain.