A90287:65
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.
Omitting my farther explication of what I had proposed, he passes unto p. 27. of my book, and thence transcribes these words: they had differences among themselves about unnecessary things, on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in the solemn assemblies, probably much vain janglings, alienation of affections, exasperations of spirit, with a neglect of due offices of love ensued hereupon, whereunto he subjoins, that the Apostle charges this upon them is true, but was that all? were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgments? we shall consider that ere long, But I am sorry he hath waved this proper place of the consideration of this important ⟨p. 60⟩assertion; the truth is, hic pes fig•ndus, if he remove not this position, he labours, in vain for the future. I desire also to know what he intends by divisions into parties; if he intend that some were of one party, some of another, in these divisions and differences, it is granted: there can-be no difference in judgment amongst men, but they must on that account be divided into parties: but if he intend thereby, that they divided into several churches, assemblies, or congregations, any of them setting up new churches on a new account, or separating from the public assemblies of the church whereof they were, and that their so doing is reproved by the Apostle under the name of Schism; then I tell him that this is that indeed whose proof is incumbent on him. Fail he herein, the whole foundation of my discourse continues firm and unshaken; the truth is, I cannot meet with any one attempt to prove this, which alone was to be proved, if he intended that I should be any farther concerned in his discourse, then only to find my self reviled and abused.
Omitting my farther explication of what I had proposed, he passes unto p. 27. of my book, and thence transcribes these words: they had differences among themselves about unnecessary things, on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in the solemne assemblies, probably much vaine janglings, alienation of affections, exasperations of spirit, with a neglect of due offices of love ensued hereupon, whereunto he subjoines, that the Apostle charges this upon them is true, but was that all? were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgments? we shall consider that ere long, But I am sorry he hath waved this proper place of the consideration of this important ⟨p. 60⟩