A85312:52
Of schism. Parochial congregations in England, and ordination
Of schism. Parochial congregations in England, and ordination by imposition of hands. Wherein Dr. Owen's discovery of the true nature of schism is briefly and friendly examined, together with Mr. Noyes of New England his arguments against imposition of hands in ordination. / By Giles Firmin, sometime of new England, now pastor of the Church at Shalford in Essex.
London: printed by T.C. for Nathanael Webb, 1658
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.
Had he thought there might be schismatical acts besides this Act in Corinth. viz. Causeless separation from a Church which was not here, (he saith) then his work was only to describe what was this Schism the Apostle reproves, and so should have said, This Schism was a causeless division, &c.
But he defines, Schism is, &c. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which promiseth to show us the True nature of Schism, [hitherto mistaken it seems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them against the Romanists ex abundanti• but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens definitions, because they mistook this particular act of Schism in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature ⟨p. 7⟩of the sin, as Logicians should do, and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all particular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schism according to the precise notion of Scripture.
But he defines, Schism is, &c. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which promiseth to shew us the True nature of Schism, [hitherto mistaken it seems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them against the Romanists ex abundanti• but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens definitions, because they mistooke this particular act of Schism in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature ⟨p. 7⟩of the sin, as Logicians should doe, and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all particular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schism according to the precise notion of Scripture.