A33359:192
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.
What Eusebius says of Churches in Alexandria at that time, is grounded upon a mistake, as appears, because immediately after the words cited, he adds, so great was the multitude of Believers at Mark's first attempt there, that Philo in his writings thought fit to give an account of them, [Greek or Hebrew]. Eusebius conceived that the Essenes, as Scaliger, or the Therapeutae, as Valesius, whom Philo describes, were the Christians of Mark's Conversion; and there being Assemblies of that Sect of the Jews in Philo's time, the Historian speaks of Christian Churches at Alexandria in Mark's time; but those who believe that he erred in the former, can have no reason to give him credit in the latter. Our Examiner does not deny that he was mistaken, but says, it is not material whether they were Jews or Christians; yet those who inquire after Truth sincerely, will think it material; and little value a Testimony which hath no better ground than a mistake.
What Eusebius sayes of Churches in Alexandria at that time, is grounded upon a mistake, as appears, because immediately after the words cited, he adds, so great was the multitude of Beleivers at Mark's first attempt there, that Philo in his writings thought fit to give an account of them, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Eusebius conceived that the Essenes, as Scaliger, or the Therapeutae, as Valesius, whom Philo describes, were the Christians of Mark's Conversion; and there being Assemblies of that Sect of the Jews in Philo's time, the Historian speaks of Christian Churches at Alexandria in Mark's time; but those who believe that he erred in the former, can have no reason to give him credit in the latter. Our Examiner does not deny that he was mistaken, but sayes, it is not material whether they were Jews or Christians; yet those who inquire after Truth sincerely, will think it material; and little value a Testimony which hath no better ground than a mistake.
The next is no bettere, that is an Epistle of Adrian, which others are puzzled to make sense of, or such sense as can have any appearance of Truth. That very passage in it, which is the only ground of our Author's Argument, himself acknowledges to be false; for he would show the Christians in Alexandria to be numerous enough for his purpose, because it is there said that some (whom he takes to be Christians) did force the Patriarch (whoever he be) to worship Christ, and yet adds, there is no doubt but Adrian does the Christians wrong in this point, for they never forced any to their