A41330:78
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.
For the serious and compassionate Enquiry, I found little in that piece as to our questions, unless a man were so simple to take fine words for strong arguments, and Rhetoric for Logic. For his Discourse about schism, I shall consider it in its place. But the chief things I observed in him, were his odious comparisons between the Conformist and Nonconformist, begun at p. 21. and continued some pages His slighting that worthy Father blessed Austin; the contempt he throws upon the Synod of Dort, which I did never expect from the pen of a Son of the Church of England. But I see this Church of England, and the ⟨p. 3⟩famous Church of England, are not the same. I need not say any thing, there is an acute pen hath given him so full and solid an answer, that I ver expect to read his Reply.
For the serious and compassionate Enquiry, I found little in that piece as to our questions, unless a man were so simple to take fine words for strong arguments, and Rhetorick for Logick. For his Discourse about schism, I shall consider it in its place. But the chief things I observed in him, were his odious comparisons between the Conformist and Nonconformist, begun at p. 21. and continued some pages His slighting that worthy Father blessed Austin; the contempt he throws upon the Synod of Dort, which I did never expect from the pen of a Son of the Church of England. But I see this Church of England, and the ⟨p. 3⟩famons Church of England, are not the same. I need not say any thing, there is an acute pen hath given him so full and solid an answer, that I ver expect to read his Reply.
To what he saith, pag. 3. That the Nonconformists blame the Doctrine of the Church, viz. the 39 Articles are not so punctual in defining the five points debated at the Synod of Dort, &c. I think I may say, I have been in the company of as many Nonconformists as that Author, but I have not heard them blame the Articles therefore. But this fault I have heard found, and do find, that we are commanded to assent to the 34, 35, & 36. Articles with the same faith we do to the fundamental Articles of our Faith and Salvation therein contained.