A53704:791
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.
This Error endeavoured to be imposed on all Churches, this false Pretence in Matter of Fact, with the following Pride in the condemnation of all other Churches, denying unto them the lawful use of the Sacraments, and rebaptizing them who were baptized in them, do if we may believe the Doctor herein contain all my Pleas for the forbearance of Communion with Parochial Assemblies, and have countenance given unto them by our Principles and Practises.
Of the Meletians whom he reckons up in the next place, no certain Account can be given, Epiphanius reports Meletus himself to have been a Good honest Orthodox Bishop; and in the Difference between him and Peter Bishop of Alexandria to have been more for Truth, as the other was more for Love and Charity. And according unto him, it was Peter and not Meletus that began the Schism; Haeres. 68. N. 2, 3. But others give quite another account of him. Socrates affirms that in time of Persecution he had sacrificed to Idols, and was for that Reason deposed from his Episcopacy by Peter of Alexandria; Lib. 3. cap. 6. Hence he was enraged against him, and filled all Thebais and Egypt with Tumults against him, and the Church of Alexandria, with intolerable Arrogance, because he was convicted of sundry Wickednesses by Peter. Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. And his Followers quickly complied with the Arians for their Advantage. The Error he proceeded ⟨p. 316⟩on according to Epiphanius, was the same with that of Novatus; which how it could be, if he himself had fallen in Persecution, and Sacrificed, as Socrates relates, I cannot understand. This Schism of Bishop Meletius also it is thought meet to be judged, that we should give Countenance unto.
Of the Meletians whom he reckons up in the next place, no certain Account can be given, Epiphanius reports Meletus himself to have been a Good honest Orthodox Bishop; and in the Difference between him and Peter Bishop of Alexandria to have been more for Truth, as the other was more for Love and Charity. And according unto him, it was Peter and not Meletus that began the Schisme; Haeres. 68. N. 2, 3. But others give quite another account of him. Socrates affirmes that in time of Persecution he had sacrificed to Idols, and was for that Reason deposed from his Episcopacy by Peter of Alexandria; Lib. 3. cap. 6. Hence he was enraged against him, and filled all Thebais and Aegypt with Tumults against him, and the Church of Alexandria, with intolerable Arrogance, because he was convicted of sundry Wickednesses by Peter. Theod. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. And his Followers quickly complyed with the Arians for their Advantage. The Error he proceeded