A41330:739
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.
2ly. This body being but one, hence then, that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches, and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament, and the other Institutions of Christ, it is is but accidental, and not essential to this body, it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body.
3ly. Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern, the Law and Rule of their Head, in their Faith and Doctrine, in their Worship and Discipline, in their conversation and practise, I may add, and constitutions, that wherever the members of this body come, they may manifest their Unity, and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches, without any just scruple or doubt. It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them; for in so doing they deny him to be the Head, and make themselves the Head. The Head is to direct.
3ly. Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern, the Law and Rule of their Head, in their Faith and Doctrine, in their Worship and Discipline, in their conversation and practise, I may add, and constitutions, that whereever the members of this body come, they may manifest their Ʋnity, and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches, without any just scruple or doubt. It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them; for in so doing they deny him to be the Head, and make themselves the Head. The Head is to direct.
4ly. If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern, and shall impose upon the members of this body, conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed, and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful, and yet will force them to subject to such conditions, or else no communion; that imposing Church is the schismatical Church, and the guilt of Schism lies at their door; Let this Imposition be in Faith, Worship, Discipline, or Manners. Let the Church be Papal (if that be a Church), Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptistical, Lutheran, Calvinist, no matter what, the Imposing party is the Schismatic. Why do you, how dare you if you be members of that Head, impose that upon the members of his Body, which himself hath not? we will not, we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him, but his own; if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule, we may admit three