A41330:488
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.
For the Love-feasts, that they were of Apostolical Institution, especially as joined to the Lords-Supper, I find nothing to persuade me to it. Feasting was a civil custom for the maintaining of love, long before any of the Apostles were born. The Apostle finds them in use, but 1 Cor. 11.22, 34. he finds fault with them, and takes them away from the Lords Supper. Calvin and Beza both affirm the same. If some Churches did retain them, yet not all. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. giving us an account how they performed the worship of God on the Lords-day, makes no mention of this, though he doth of the Lords-Supper. And for Feasting after Tertullian's fashion, if we administer at noon time; the poor Nonconformists use to have the poor of the Church to dine with them. So that this reaches not me.
For the Love-feasts, that they were of Apostolical Institution, especially as joined to the Lords-Supper, I find nothing to perswade me to it. Feasting was a civil custom for the maintaining of love, long before any of the Apostles were born. The Apostle finds them in use, but 1 Cor. 11.22, 34. he finds fault with them, and takes them away from the Lords Supper. Calvin and Beza both affirm the same. If some Churches did retain them, yet not all. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. giving us an account how they performed the worship of God on the Lords-day, makes no mention of this, though he doth of the Lords-Supper. And for Feasting after Tertullian's fashion, if we administer at noon time; the poor Nonconformists use to have the poor of the Church to dine with them. So that this reaches not me.
So for Kissing, men kissing men, and women kissing women, which you say was meant by their kissing, not men kissing women. This also was a civil custom a thousand of years before any Apostle was born; how then this should be called an Apostolical Constitution I cannot understand. Our civil custom is to give the right-hand, or the hand, and signifies the same that kissing doth; the Apostle modifies a civil custom of their own; and we stand obliged to the same duty the Apostle intends in it, even Love without Dissimulation.