A90287:131
A review of the true nature of schism, with a vindication of the Congregational…A review of the true nature of schisme, with a vindication of the Congregationall…
A review of the true nature of schism, with a vindication of the Congregational churches in England, from the imputation thereof unjustly charged on them by Mr D. Cawdrey, preacher of the Word at Billing in Northampton-shire. / By John Owen D.D.A review of the true nature of schisme, with a vindication of the Congregationall churches in England, from the imputation thereof unjustly charged on them by Mr D. Cawdrey, preacher of the Word at Billing in Northampton-shire. / By John Owen D.D.
Oxford: printed by Henry Hall printer to the University for Thomas Robinson, 1657
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.
The consideration of my postulata, proposed in a ⟨p. 142⟩preparation to what was to be insisted on, in the next Chapter, as influenced from the foregoing dissertations alone remains, and indeed alone deserve our notice.
The consideration of my postulata, proposed in a ⟨p. 142⟩preparation to what was to be insisted on, in the next Chapter, as influenced from the foregoing dissertations alone remaines, and indeed alone deserve our notice.
My first is this. The departing of any man or men from any particular Church, as to the communion peculiar to such a Church, is no where called Schism, nor is so in the nature of the thing it self, but is a thing to be judged and receive a title according to the circumstances of it; to this he adjoins; this is not the Question, a simple secession of a man or men upon some just occasion is not called schism, but to make causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, as no Church, denying communion with it, hath the nature and name of schism in all mens judgments but his own. An. What Question doth our Reverend Author mean? I fear he is still fancying of the difference between Presbyterians and Independents, and squaring all things by that Imagination; whether it be a Question stated to his mind or no, I cannot tell, but it is an assertion expressive of mine own, which he may do well ⟨p. 143⟩to disprove if he can. Who told him that raising causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgment schism? May I possibly retain hopes of making my self understood by this Reverend Author? I suppose though, that a pertinacious abiding in a mistake, is neither schism nor heresy. And so this may be passed over.
My first is this. The departing of any man or men from any particular Church, as to the communion peculiar to such a Church, is no where called Schisme, nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe, but is a thing to be judged and recieve a title according to the circumstances of it; to this he adjoines; this is not the Question, a simple secessiō of a man or mē upon some just occasion is not called schisme, but to make causless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, as no Church, denying communion with it, hath the nature and name of schisme in all mens judgments but his own. An. What Question doth our Reverend Author meane? I feare he is still fancying of the difference between Presbyterians and Independents, and squaring all things by that Imagination; whether it be a Question stated to his mind or no, I cannot tell, but it is an assertion expressive of mine owne, which he may do well