A34675:83
A defence of Mr. John Cotton from the imputation of self contradiction, charged on…A defence of Mr. John Cotton from the imputation of selfe contradiction, charged on…
A defence of Mr. John Cotton from the imputation of self contradiction, charged on him by Mr. Dan. Cawdrey written by himself not long before his death ; whereunto is prefixed, an answer to a late treatise of the said Mr. Cawdrey about the nature of schism, by John Owen ...A defence of Mr. John Cotton from the imputation of selfe contradiction, charged on him by Mr. Dan. Cavvdrey written by himselfe not long before his death ; whereunto is prefixed, an answer to a late treatise of the said Mr. Cavvdrey about the nature of schisme, by John Owen ...
Oxford: printed by H. Hall for T. Robinson, 1658
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.
In the entrance of the fifth Chapter he takes advantage from my question, p. 147. who told him that raising causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgment schism; when the first part of the assertion, included in that interrogation, expresseth the formal nature of Schism, which is not destroyed, nor can any man be exonerated of it's guilt, by the subsequent crime of separation, whereby it is aggravated. 1 Joh. 2. 19: is again mentioned to this purpose of schism, to as little purpose, so also is Heb. 10. 25: both places treat of Apostates, who are charged and blamed under other terms than that of Schism. There is in such departures, as in every division whatever, of that which was in Union, ⟨p. 77⟩somewhat of the general nature of schism: but that particular crime and guilt of schism in it's restrained Ecclesiastical sense, is not included in them.
In the entrance of the fifth Chapter he takes advantage from my question, p. 147. who told him that raising causelesse differences in a Church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgment schisme; when the first part of the assertion, included in that interrogation, expresseth the formal nature of Schisme, which is not destroyed, nor can any man be exonerated of it's guilt, by the subsequent crime of separation, whereby it is aggravated. 1 Joh. 2. 19: is againe mentioned to this purpose of schism, to as little purpose, so also is Heb. 10. 25: both places treat of Apostates, who are charged and blamed under other termes than that of Schisme. There is in such departures, as in every division whatever, of that which was in Union, ⟨p. 77⟩somewhat of the generall nature of schisme: but that particular crime and guilt of schisme in it's restrained Ecclesiasticall sense, is not included in them.