A53704:897
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.
Answ. 1. Whereas this Argument seems to be cast into the form of a Syllogism, I could easily manifest how asyllogistical it is, did I delight to contend with him, or any else. But
Answ. 1. Whereas this Argument seems to be cast into the form of a Syllogisme, I could easily manifest how asyllogistical it is, did I delight to contend with him, or any else. But
2. The Conclusion which he infers is directly what I plead for, Namely, that all the Churches under the care of the Apostles were Voluntary Congregations.
3. There is Fallacy in that Expression, no limited Congregations of any one particular Church; no such thing is pretended, but particular Churches are Congregations. ⟨p. 349⟩Such were all the Churches over which the Apostles were set, and therefore Justice Hobart speaks of them all. This then is that which he seems to oppose, namely, that all the Churches under the care of the Apostles were particular voluntary Congregations, as Justice Hobart affirms, and this is that which in the close, he seems to grant.
3. There is Fallacy in that Expression, no limited Congregations of any one particular Church; no such thing is pretended, but particular Churches are Congregations. ⟨p. 349⟩Such were all the Churches over which the Apostles were set, and therefore Justice Hobart speaks of them all. This then is that which he seems to oppose, namely, that all the Churches under the care of the Apostles were particular voluntary Congregations, as Justice Hobart affirms, and this is that which in the close, he seemes to grant.