A41330:555
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.
Nor doth your obedience to authority help here, which so many are glad they have that starting hole to run into, and your self so much urge. Had these strong brethren in this, Rom. 14. been Princes, or Archbishops, and they should have commanded the weak brethren to have eat these meats, they had sinned in their command; nor were they bound to obey them with a doubtful conscience; to hazard amnation by obedience to superiors, is no good Divinity. Yet, Sir, we do give obedience, and will preach up obedience to Princes, as much as any other, only in the matters of God, he is the superior and supremest, Nemini fit injuria, cui praponitur Deus.
Nor doth your obedience to authority help here, which so many are glad they have that starting hole to run into, and your self so much urge. Had these strong brethren in this, Rom. 14. been Princes, or Archbishops, and they should have commanded the weak brethren to have eat these meats, they had sinned in their command; nor were they bound to obey them with a doubtful conscience; to hazard amnation by obedience to superiors, is no good Divinity. Yet, Sir, we do give obedience, and will preach up obedience to Princes, as much as any other, only in the matters of God, he is the superior and supreamest, Nemini fit injuria, cui praponitur Deus.
For your next Section, pag. 442. where you labour to defend your Ceremonies, though they have been abused in a corrupt way of worship in Popery. As for this Section Mr. Falkner might have spared it; for Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to be annexed to Gods own Institutions, we judg them sinful additions, entrenching upon the Sovereignty, and slighting of the wisdom of Christ, though Rome had never known them; as if the wise holy God could not have appointed more Doctrinal Ceremonies, had he cared for them, as well as foolish sinful man; but since then these were and are still in the Popish worship, and retained here when England threw off the Papal yoke, I will consider what he hath said, and but touch it briefly.