A41330:703
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.
Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue, where there was no union, there can be no Schism.
But between us and your Church there was no union: Ergo, no Schism; why then doth he charge us with it?
3ly. Suppose we were members, yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation; which though you attempt to do, yet Sir, you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes, and humane stories to convince us.
But one thing more: Why doth he tie up his definition to a particular Church? I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a member, and yet both he and that particular Church too, may be guilty of Schism. So that his definition is too strait. I will give him more advantage, and let him take it.
But one thing more: Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church? I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a member, and yet both he and that particular Church too, may be guilty of Schism. So that his definition is too strait. I will give him more advantage, and let him take it.