A19884:182
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his writings. By John Davenport BD.An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his wrightings. By Iohn Davenporte BD.
Rotterdam: printed by Isaac van Waesberghe, 1636Rotterdam: printed by Isaack van Waesberghe, 1636
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.
Thirdly, the case may be such, in a positive secession, as it may be disputable, whether it be to be called a Schism, or not. Mr. Cartwright declareth, out of Theodoret, how the Catholics which maintained the faith, of the Nicene Council, through affection to their teachers (of whom they were unjustly deprived) severed themselves into several companies: and, there upon demands, will the Answerer say that these meetings were Schismatical? And then answereth, If he do; ⟨p. 27⟩he speaketh otherwise then Theodoret.1
Thirdly, the case may be such, in a positive secession, as it may be disputable, whether it be to be called a Schysme, or not. Mr. Cartwright declareth, out of Theodoret, how the Catholicks which maintayned the fayth, of the Nicene Councill, through affection to their teachers (of whom they were unjustly deprived) severed themselves into severall companies: and, there upon demands, will the Answerer say that these meetings were Schysmaticall? And then answereth, If he doe; ⟨p. 27⟩he speaketh otherwise then Theodoret.1
- 14. Nor argueth men to be of a Schismatical disposition. Socrat. lib. 6. Cap: 16. Soz: lib: 8. Ca: 22.23 24.25.26 27.4. Nor argueth men to be of a Schysmaticall disposition. Socrat. lib. 6. Cap: 16. Soz: lib: 8. Ca: 22.23 24.25.26 27.
Fourthly, Every positive secession (or Schism) is not to be imputed to the Schismatical disposition of those, who withdraw themselves, but sometimes to the injurious, dealing of others. For instance. Under Arcadius the Emperor, a great Schism was raised in Constantinople, whereof Socrates speaketh somewhat, but Sozomen much more. Who was the author of that Schism? Were those Orthodox Christians (Bishops, Presbyters, and people) who, being incensed by the indignity of the thing, & not being able to bear the ill usage of so learned & pious a man, as Chrysostom, then unjustly banished, assembled a part, & forsook the rest of the Church, were, I say, these blamed as men of a Schismatical disposition? No. the blame of it was laid upon Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, who, out of Envy, practised against Chrysostom, & prevailed so far, that, that holy man was cast out of his Bishopric,