A53704:30
An enquiry into the original, nature, institution, power, order and communion of evangelical churches.…
An enquiry into the original, nature, institution, power, order and communion of evangelical churches. The first part with an answer to the discourse of the unreasonableness of separation written by Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of Pauls, and in defence of the vindication of non-conformists from the guilt of schism / by John Owen.An enquiry into the original, nature, institution, power, order and communion of evangelical churches. The first part with an answer to the discourse of the unreasonableness of separation written by Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of Pauls, and in defence of the vindication of non-conformists from the guilt of schisme / by John Owen.
London: printed by J. Richardson for Nath. Ponder, 1681
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.
2. But it may be pleaded, that although the Churches following the first Ages, did insensibly degenerate from the Purity and simplicity of Gospel Faith and Worship, yet they neither did nor could do so, from an Adherence unto, and abiding in their Original constitution; or from the due Observation of Church Order, Rule, and Discipline, least of all could this happen in the Case of Diocesan Episcopacy. I Answer;
1. That as unto the Original of any thing that looks like Diocesan Episcopacy, or the Pastoral Relation of one Person of a distinct order from Presbyters, unto many particular complete Churches with Officers of their own, with Power and Jurisdiction in them and over them, unto the Abridgement of the exercise of that Right and Power unto their own Edification, which every true Church is entrusted withal by Jesus Christ, it is very uncertain, and was introduced by insensible Degrees, according unto the effectual working of the Mystery of Iniquity. Some say, that there were two distinct Orders, namely, those of Bishops and Presbyters, instituted at first, in all Churches planted by the Apostles; But as the contrary may be evidently proved, so a supposition of it, would no way promote the cause of Diocesan Episcopacy, until those who plead for it have demonstrated the State of the Churches wherein they were placed, to be of the same nature with those now called Diocesan; Wherefore this Hypothesis begins generally to be ⟨p. 7⟩deserted, as it seems to be by this Author. Others suppose that immediately upon, or at, or after the Decease of the Apostles, this new Order of Bishops was appointed to succeed the Apostles in the Government of the Churches, that were then gathered or planted. But how, when, or by whom, by what Authority, Apostolical and Divine, or Ecclesiastical only and humane, none can declare; seeing there is not the least footstep of any such thing either in the Scripture or in the Records that remain of the primitive Churches. Others think this new Order of Officers, took its occasional Rise, from the Practice of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria, who chose out one among themselves constantly to preside in the Rule of the Church, and in all matters of Order, unto whom they ascribed some kind of Preeminence and Dignity, peculiarly appropriating unto him the name of Bishop. And if this be true as unto matter of Fact, I reckon it unto the Beginnings of those less harmful Deviations from their Original Constitution; which I assigned unto Primitive Churches; But many Additions must be made hereunto, before it will help the Cause of Diocesan Episcopacy. What other occasions hereof were given or taken, what Advantages were made use of to promote this Alteration, shall be touched upon afterwards.