A53704:385
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.
Chapter 6: Congregational Churches alone suited unto the ends of Christ in the Institution of his…
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.
1. When Prerogative and Preeminence of any single Person in the Church began to be in esteem, not a few who failed in their attempts of attaining it, to revenge themselves on the Church, made it their business to invent and propagate pernicious Heresies. So did Thebulis at Jerusalem, Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. and Valentinus, Tertul. ad. Valentin. cap. 4. and Marcion at Rome, Epiphan. Haeres. 42. Montanus fell into his dotage on the same account, so did Novitianus at Rome, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 43. and Arius at Alexandria. Hence is that censure of them by Lactantius, lib. 4. cap. 30. Ii quorum fides fuit lubrica, cùm Deum nosse se & collar simularent, augendis opibus & honori students, affectabant Maximum Sacerdotium, & à potioribus victi, secedere cum suffragatoribus maluerunt, quàm eos ferre praepositos quibus concupierant ips• ante praeponi.
1. When Prerogative and Preheminence of any single Person in the Church began to be in esteem, not a few who failed in their attempts of attaining it, to revenge themselves on the Church, made it their business to invent and propagate pernicious Heresies. So did Thebulis at Hierusalem, Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. and Valentinus, Tertul. ad. Valentin. cap. 4. and Marcion at Rome, Epiphan. Haeres. 42. Montanus fell into his dotage on the same account, so did Novitianus at Rome, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 43. and Arius at Alexandria. Hence is that censure of them by Lactantius, lib. 4. cap. 30. Ii quorum fides fuit lubrica, cùm Deum nosse se & colere simularent, augendis opibus & honori studentes, affectabant Maximum Sacerdotium, & à potioribus victi, secedere cum suffragatoribus maluerunt, quàm eos ferre praepositos quibus concupierant ips• ante praeponi.
2. When any of their Bishops of the new Constitution, whether Patriarchal or Diocesan, fell into Heresies, which they did frequently, and that numbers of them, they had so many advantages to diffuse their poison into the whole Body of their Churches, and such Political Interests for their Promotion, as that the Churches themselves were throughly infected with them. It is true, the Body of the People in many places did oppose them, withdraw and separate from them: but it cannot be denied, but that this was the first way and means whereby the Churches ceased to be the Ground and Pillar of Truth, many destructive Errors being received into them, which did only outwardly assault them, whilst they abode in their first Institution. And had not the