A33359:104
Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times
Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times, or, A defence of the answer to Dr. Stillingfleets allegations out of antiquity for such churches against the exceptions offered in the preface to a late treatise called A vindication of the primitive church, where what is further produced out of Scripture and ancient authors for diocesan churches is also discussed.Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times, or, A defence of the answer to Dr. Stillingfleets allegations out of antiquity for such churches against the exceptions offered in the preface to a late treatise called A vindication of the primitive church, where what is further produced out of Scripture and antient authors for diocesan churches is also discussed.
London: printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1682
Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive times.
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.
However he likes not my reason, and why? because, though it had no Catholics in it then, it might have some before and concludes it had, because it belonged heretofore to the Diocese of Hippo.
However he likes not my reason, and why? because, though it had no Catholicks in it then, it might have some before and concludes it had, because it belonged heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo.
But that it formerly had Catholics, (says he) we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning, because it belonged heretofore to the Diocese of Hippo.
But that it formerly had Catholicks, (saies he) we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning, because it belonged heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo.
If Diocese be taken in a civil sense (as it is frequently in African Authors) this will be no proof, that there had been any Catholics in it, because in this sense Fussala might belong to that Diocese, though there had not been either Christian or Bishop in the whole Region: Nor will it be hereby proved, taking it in the Ecclesiastical sense; for that part of Hippo, which was under the Donatist Bishop, had no Catholic; and yet de jure, as he tells us, belonged to the Diocese, (as he calls it,) or charge of St. Austin. Yet since he allows Mr. Baxter's Argument, he must admit what it concludes, viz. that a place that hath no Christians or Catholics in it, belongs to no Bishop; and then Fussala never belonged to St. Austin as its Bishop; either before it had Catholics, for against this the Argument is admitted to be conclusive: not after, for then it had a Bishop of its own. And so all they have to allege for the largeness of St. Austin's Bishopric comes to nothing.
If Diocess be taken in a civil sense (as it is frequently in African Authors) this will be no proof, that there had been any Catholicks in it, because in this sense Fussala might belong to that Diocess, though there had not been either Christian or Bishop in the whole Region: Nor will it be hereby proved, taking it in the Ecclesiastical sense; for that part of Hippo, which was under the Donatist Bishop, had no Catholick; and yet de jure, as he tells us, belonged to the Diocess, (as he calls it,) or charge of St. Austin. Yet since he allows Mr. Baxter's Argument, he must admit what it concludes, viz. that a place that hath no Christians or Catholicks in it, belongs to no Bishop; and then Fussala never belonged to St. Austin as its Bishop; either before it had Catholicks, for against this the Argument is admitted to be conclusive: not after, for then it had a Bishop of its own. And so all they have to alledge for the largeness of St. Austin's Bishoprick comes to nothing.