A41330:101
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.
Thus some have affirmed that John took up his Baptism from the Jews baptizing of Proselytes, when others have shown that the Jews took it from John, when Christ put the question, Mat. 21.23, 25. The Baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or men? Why did they not answer from the Elders Tradition; it seems it was the counsel of God, Luk. 7.30. whatever these men say: and Joh. 1.33. He that sent me to Baptize.
Whence I shall desire that leave to lay by all these Quotations out of Scaliger, Selden, and other Rabbinical men, as signifying nothing to the Questions in hand. We must have Scripture, and Scripture reason, in matters of God.
Whence I shall desire that leave to lay by all these Quotations out of Scaliger, Selden, and other Rabinical men, as signifying nothing to the Questions in hand. We must have Scripture, and Scripture reason, in matters of God.
Here Dr. Goodman proves us to be guilty of Judaism, telling his Reader, p. 69 this is their grand Hypothesis, That nothing is lawful in the service of God, but what is expressly prescribed in Scripture. Such an Hypothesis I never saw yet in any of our Nonconformists Books. I will yield him more. As,
Here Dr. Goodman proves us to be guilty of Judaism, telling his Reader, p. 69 this is their grand Hypothesis, That nothing is lawful in the service of God, but what is expresly prescribed in Scripture. Such an Hypothesis I never saw yet in any of our Nonconformists Books. I will yield him more. As,