A33359:193
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 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 ⟨p. 53⟩Religion. Will he have us to rely upon reasonings, which have no better Foundation, than what is undoubtedly false by his own Confession? He says also it is not material to our purpose whether this Patriarch were Bishop of Alexandria, or chief Governor of the Jews. If so, then it is not material with this Gentleman, either to argue from that which is not true, or else from that which is nothing to his purpose. For if this Patriarch was the Bishop of Alexandria, that they forced him to worship Christ, is not true, he did it of his own accord: and if it be not one, who was no Christian, that they forced; then is not any thing in this passage to his purpose, and Adrian's Epistle might have been waved as a mere impertinency.
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 shew 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 ⟨p. 53⟩Religion. Will he have us to rely upon reasonings, which have no better Foundation, than what is undoubtedly false by his own Confession? He sayes also it is not material to our purpose whether this Patriarch were Bishop of Alexandria, or chief Governour of the Jews. If so, then it is not material with this Gentleman, either to argue from that which is not true, or else from that which is nothing to his purpose. For if this Patriarch was the Bishop of Alexandria, that they forced him to worship Christ, is not true, he did it of his own accord: and if it be not one, who was no Christian, that they forced; then is not any thing in this passage to his purpose, and Adrian's Epistle might have been waved as a meer impertinency.