A41330:424
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.
To these Texts Mr. Car, and Mr. Falkner, answer different ways: Mr. Car, p. 56. tells us, This we count superstition, supra statutum, to add any thing to Gods Law, or to be too strict in tying our selves to more than God requireth of us. But foreseeing how this Text will be turned upon the things imposed, he with the other Conformists plough with the Popish Heifers, using the same distinctions that Vasquez, Bellarmine, Cor. a Lapide, used to defend their fopperies.
To these Texts Mr. Carre, and Mr. Falkner, answer different ways: Mr. Carre, p. 56. tells us, This we count superstition, supra statutum, to add any thing to Gods Law, or to be too strict in tying our selves to more than God requireth of us. But foreseeing how this Text will be turned upon the things imposed, he with the other Conformists plow with the Popish Heifers, using the same distinctions that Vasquez, Bellarmine, Cor. a Lapide, used to defend their fopperies.
There is a preserving and corrupting addition; a circumstantial and an essential addition; the two last he condemns; i. e. the corrupting and essential addition.
To which it is answered: 1. To your preserving addition; it is a corrupting addition, because it is addition. Deny the Genus, and you deny the Species. Addition is denied. Particular Laws exactly answering Gods general Law, are no additions.