A41330:429
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.
4ly. No addition could so properly be called a preserving addition as that of Uzzah's staying the Ark to preserve it from falling, 2 Sam. 6.6, 7. who could use this distinction better than he? 1but that would not save him. Upon which Salvian thus writeth: Denique Oza ille Levites Dei, quid contra mandatum coeleste fecit, quod vacillantem Arcam Domini sustinere tentavit? nihil enim hinc erat lege praceptum, & statim dumb sustinebat extinctus est. Non quia ut videtur ad speciem, contumaci aliquid, aut in officiosa saltem mente commiserit. sed ipso officio inofficiosus fuit, qui injusta praesumpsit. Salvian knew well enough the Law about the carrying the Ark; but in this case when the Ark is in danger of falling, what Law is there, else Uzzah would not have touched it? He aims at this to prove that there is nothing belongs to God ought to be esteemed light. Good intentions here will not serve.
4ly. No addition could so properly be called a preserving addition as that of Ʋzzah's staying the Ark to preserve it from falling, 2 Sam. 6.6, 7. who could use this distinction better than he? 1but that would not save him. Upon which Salvian thus writeth: Denique Oza ille Levites Dei, quid contra mandatum coeleste fecit, quod vacillantem Arcam Domini sustinere tentavit? nihil enim hinc erat lege praceptum, & statim dum sustinebat extinctus est. Non quia ut videtur ad speciem, contumaci aliquid, aut in officiosa saltem mente commiserit. sed ipso officio inofficiosus fuit, qui injusta praesumpsit. Salvian knew well enough the Law about the carrying the Ark; but in this case when the Ark is in danger of falling, what Law is there, else Ʋzzah would not have touched it? He aims at this to prove that there is nothing belongs to God ought to be esteemed light. Good intentions here will not serve.
- 1De Gubern Dei. l. 6 p. 203.