A33359:113
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.
The learned Dean had cited Austin as calling himself the Bishop of that Diocese (understanding by it a Region of vast extent) I observed that in the Epistle quoted he only saith he had the Episcopal charge of Hippo. By this the Gentleman changing my words, will have me to signify, that he was the Bishop of the Town only. This I did not intend, but that, he was not the only Bishop of that whole Region. But whether he was Bishop of part of the Town only, or of that and some part of the Region also, I am not much concerned. His words are ⟨p. 32⟩as if he had been Bishop of the Town only, nay, but of part of that neither, for the Donatists had their Bishop there: so this will strangely diminish the Bishopric of St. Austin which at first appeared so large. Then he answers, for the Donatists having a Bishop there, it signifies little to our present purpose, since he was but an Usurper.
The learned Dean had cited Austin as calling himself the Bishop of that Diocess (understanding by it a Region of vast extent) I observed that in the Epistle quoted he onely saith he had the Episcopal charge of Hippo. By this the Gentleman changing my words, will have me to signifie, that he was the Bishop of the Town only. This I did not intend, but that, he was not the only Bishop of that whole Region. But whether he was Bishop of part of the Town only, or of that and some part of the Region also, I am not much concerned. His words are ⟨p. 32⟩as if he had been Bishop of the Town only, nay, but of part of that neither, for the Donatists had their Bishop there: so this will strangely diminish the Bishoprick of St. Austin which at first appeared so large. Then he answers, for the Donatists having a Bishop there, it signifies little to our present purpose, since he was but an Ʋsurper.
But this signifies as much to my purpose as I need; for the Donatists having a Bishopric in Hippo, St. Austin's must needs be diminished thereby, and altogether as much lessened, as if they had not been Usurpers. And they were counted no otherwise Usurpers, but so that if the Donatist Bishop had been reconciled; by a Decree of the African Church he was to continue in his Bishop-there, as a rightful Possessor, and there would have been still two Dioceses (such as they were) in one Town.