A41330:840
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.
Have not you read Estius, Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling those Heretics that are not of your Opinion, and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do? he saith thus. Quod autem jure Divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris Superiores, & si non ita clarum este sacris Scripturis, aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest. Have you not read what Medina saith of the Fathers in this point; and what our Bishop Jewel, naming the same Fathers that Medina did, adds, Paul himself must be a Heretic if Bishop and Presbyter be not the same according to the Scriptures. Much more I might add, that I wonder you could write such a line.
Have not you read Estius, Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling those Hereticks that are not of your Opinion, and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do? he saith thus. Quod autem jure Divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris Superiores, & si non ita clarum este sacris Scripturis, aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest. Have you not read what Medina saith of the Fathers in this point; and what our Bishop Jewel, naming the same Fathers that Medina did, adds, Paul himself must be a Heretick if Bishop and Presbyter be not the same according to the Scriptures. Much more I might add, that I wonder you could write such a line.
And what Sir, will you exclude all those Churches from being parts of the Catholic Church, that have not, nor do own your Prelacy? or what Church do you mean, when you say the Church hath owned?
And what Sir, will you exclude all those Churches from being parts of the Catholick Church, that have not, nor do own your Prelacy? or what Church do you mean, when you say the Church hath owned?