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…

Once for all; unless you prove that there was a separation from that Church of Corinth (be it of what constitution it may by any be supposed) as such, into another church, and that this is reproved by the Apostle under the name of Schism, you speak not one word to invalidate the principle by me laid down: and for what he adds; that for what I say there was no one church divided against another, or separated from another, is assumed, but not proved unless by a negative, which is invalid; he wrests my words: I say not, there was no such thing, but that there was no mention of any such thing: for though it be as clear as the noon day, that indeed there was no such thing, it sufficeth my purpose that there was no mention of any such thing, and therefore no such thing reproved under the name of Schism. With this one observation, I might well dismiss the whole ensuing treatise, seeing of how little use it is like to prove, as to the business in hand, when the Author of it indeed apprehends not the principle ⟨p. 65⟩which he pretends to oppose; I shall once more tell him, that he abide not in his mistake, that if he intend to evert the principle here by me insisted on, it must be by a demonstration that the Schism charged on the Corinthians by Paul consisted in the separation from, and relinquishment of that church, whereof they were members, and congregating into another not before erected or established; for this is that which the Reformed Churches are charged to do by the Romanists, in respect of their Churches, and accused of schism thereupon. But the differences which he thinks good to manage and maintain, with, and against the Independents do so possess the thoughts of this Reverend Author, that what ever occurs to him, is immediately measured by the regard which it seems to bear, or may possibly bear thereunto, though that consideration were least of all regarded in its proposal.

Once for all; unlesse you prove that there was a separation frō that Church of Corinth (be it of what constitution it may by any be supposed) as such, into another church, and that this is reproved by the Apostle under the name of Schisme, you speak not one word to invalidate the principle by me laid downe: and for what he addes; that for what I say there was no one church divided against another, or separated from another, is assumed, but not proved unlesse by a negative, which is invallid; he wrests my words: I say not, there was no such thing, but that there was no mention of any such thing: for though it be as cleare as the noone day, that indeed there was no such thing, it sufficeth my purpose that there was no mention of any such thing, and therefore no such thing reproved under the name of Schisme. With this one observation, I might well dismisse the whole ensuing treatise, seeing of how litle use it is like to prove, as to the businesse in hand, when the Author of it indeed apprehends not the principle