A33359:205
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 Advocates for these Churches, who assign the bounds of a Diocese with most Moderation, will have it to comprise a City with a Territory belonging to it; but there was no Church in the Territory which belonged to the Bishop of Rome, he had none but within the City, as Innocentius declares in the cited Epistle, whereas now the greatest City with a Territory larger than some ancient Province is counted little enough for a Diocese. Further it is now judged to be no Diocese which comprises not very many Churches with Presbyters appropriated to them; but he tells us none of the Churches in Rome were appropriated to any Presbyter, but they were served in common. How? as greater Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countries, and then they were ruled in common as these Cities are. The Government of many Churches is not there, nor was of old, ever entrusted in one hand; and thus the Bishop of Rome was no more a Diocesan than the Presbyters of that City.
The Advocates for these Churches, who assign the bounds of a Diocess with most Moderation, will have it to comprize a City with a Territory belonging to it; but there was no Church in the Territory which belonged to the Bishop of Rome, he had none but within the City, as Innocentius declares in the cited Epistle, whereas now the greatest City with a Territory larger than some antient Province is counted little enough for a Diocess. Further it is now judged to be no Diocess which comprises not very many Churches with Presbyters appropriated to them; but he tells us none of the Churches in Rome were appropriated to any Presbyter, but they were served in common. How? as greater Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countreys, and then they were ruled in common as these Cities are. The Government of many Churches is not there, nor was of old, ever entrusted in one hand; and thus the Bishop of Rome was no more a Diocesan than the Presbyters of that City.
He concludes mwith two Assertions which will neither of them hold good. The first that it is evident out of Athanasius how the Bishop of that City had from the beginning several fixed Congregations under him.