A53704:709
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.
(3.) If the Church wherein such Differences fall out be not able in and of it self to make a Doctrinal Determination of such Differences, they may and ought to crave the Counsel and Advice of other Churches, with whom they walk in Communion in Faith and Love. And so it was in the Case whereof an Account is given us; Act. 15. The Determination or Decree there made concerning the necessary Observance of the Jewish Rites by the Gentiles converted unto the Faith, by the Apostles, Elders and Brethren, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost as his Mind was revealed in the Scripture, gives not the least Countenance unto the making and imposing such a Rule on all Churches and their Members as is contended for.
For (1.) It was only a Doctrinal Determination, without Imposition on the Practise of any.
(2.) It was a Determination against Impositions directly. And whereas it is said, that it was a Determination contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, which shows, that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alleged both ways, is no standing Rule; I grant that it was contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, but imposed nothing on them, nor was their Practice concerned in that erroneous Judgement. They were not required to do any thing contrary to their own Judgment; and the not doing whereof did reflect on their own Consciences. Wherefore the whole Rule given by the Apostle and the whole Determination made, is that no Impositions be made on the Consciences or Practice of the Disciples of Christ, in things relating to his Worship, but what were necessary by virtue of Divine Institution. They added hereunto, that the Gentiles enjoying this Liberty, ought to use it without offence; and were at Liberty by virtue of it, to forbear such things, as wherein they had, or thought they had a natural Liberty, in case they gave Offence by the use of them. And the Apostles who knew the state of things, in the Minds of the Jews, and all other Circumstances give an Instance in the things which at that season, were to be so forborne. And whereas this Determination was not absolute and obligatory on the whole Case, unto all Churches, namely, whether the Mosaical Law were to be observed among Christians, but some Churches were left unto their own Judgement and Practise, who esteemed it to be still in force, as the Churches of the Jews, and others left unto their own Liberty and Practise also, who judged it not to oblige them, both sides or Parties being bound to continue.