A41330:766
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.
10ly. Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church, because of their corrupt Impositions, yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other, will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points, excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see, being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances, that Church cannot be charged with Schism, though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church; for we give communion to their members, only exclude their imposed corruptions. I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath, &c. of reforming those corruptions, and now return to them again. I look on this as a greater sin; but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion, (I do not say all will) but then how are we Schismatics?
10ly. Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church, because of their corrupt Impositions, yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other, will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points, excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see, being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances, that Church cannot be charged with Schism, though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church; for we give communion to their members, only exclude their imposed corruptions. I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath, &c. of reforming those corruptions, and now return to them again. I look on this as a greater sin; but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion, (I do not say all will) but then how are we Schismaticks?
11ly. Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine, Worship, and Conversation, that the sounder members not only may, but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection, and this is not Schism but Duty.