A41330:561
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.
Ans. A strange argument for a learned man! If so excellent a Creature as man, made after the Image of God, under a necessity of obedience to his Creator, being fallen from God, but by Gods rich mercy, the Obedience, Blood, and Sacrifice of Immanuel, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, be accepted of God; Then a paltry human Ceremony indifferent in its own nature, and no necessity for the use, if abused in an Idolatrous Church, may yet be retained in a chaste Church, and the use of it acceptable to God. This Logic I understand not: Consequence denied. I could enlarge my answer, but will not.
Ans. A strange argument for a learned man! If so excellent a Creature as man, made after the Image of God, under a necessity of obedience to his Creator, being fallen from God, but by Gods rich mercy, the Obedience, Blood, and Sacrifice of Immanuel, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, be accepted of God; Then a paultry human Ceremony indifferent in its own nature, and no necessity for the use, if abused in an Idolatrous Church, may yet be retained in a chast Church, and the use of it acceptable to God. This Logick I understand not: Consequence denied. I could enlarge my answer, but will not.
2d. Arg. From single mersion, and threefold mersion in baptism.
2d. Arg. From single mersion, and threefold mersion in baptizm.
A. Was the water, so baptizing in water, a Human Ceremony and Invention, or Christs own Institution? For dipping in the water, or pouring of the water upon the person, your Church allow both, because the word [Greek or Hebrew] signify both. If any did dip thrice, denying the Trinity of persons to be of the same essence, that was their Heresy: but if any did hold the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the essence, and yet would dip thrice, though I do not much like it, yet I should not condemn them of Heresy, the Text mentions nothing, whether once, or thrice. But prove Baptizing in water to be mans invention.