A53704:862
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.
We do not say that because Communion in Ordinances should be only in such Churches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches; but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them, it is the ⟨p. 339⟩Duty of them that do so, to join themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation.
We do not say that because Communion in Ordinances should be only in such Churches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches; but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them, it is the ⟨p. 339⟩Duty of them that do so, to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation.
I have not observed any occasion wherein the Dr. is more vehement in his Rhetoric, then he is on that of this passage, which yet appears to me to be good sense and innocent.
I have not observed any occasion wherein the Dr. is more vehement in his Rhetorick, then he is on that of this passage, which yet appears to me to be good sence and innocent.
1. Hereunto he says, (1.) p. 221. That this is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up the cause of Independency. If he judge that it is not to the business, I cannot help it, and he might as I suppose have done well to have taken no notice of it; as I have dealt with many passages in his Discourse. But if it be a giving up of the cause of Independency, I say whatever that be, let whoso will take it, and dispose of it as it seems good unto them, but in proof hereof he says.