A33359:229
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.
If there had been more Christians in the Church of Jerusalem than could meet in one place, that would be no Evidence that it was a Diocesan Church, whereas the whole is said in the Acts to meet in one placel. He hath nothing to say against this which is considerable, but that the all, may denote only those that were presentm, and so the sense will be, all that were in one place, were in one place, if this can please himself, I think it will satisfy none else. Let Dr. Hammond decide this business, for in such a cause we may admit a Party to be Umpiren, What follows, saith he, of the paucity of Believers, and their meeting in one place, is willingly granted by us. What they say of the point of time, Acts 2. 41. that believers were so numerous, that they could not conveniently meet in one place, this is contrary to the evidence of the Text, which saith expressly ver. 44. that all the believers were [Greek or Hebrew], which in the last Paragraph they interpreted meeting in one and the same place: the like might be said of the other places, Acts 4. 3. and 5. 14. for certainly as yet, though the number of Believers increased, yet they were not distributed into several Congregations.
If there had been more Christians in the Church of Jerusalem than could meet in one place, that would be no Evidence that it was a Diocesan Church, whereas the whole is said in the Acts to meet in one placel. He hath nothing to say against this which is considerable, but that the all, may denote only those that were presentm, and so the sense will be, all that were in one place, were in one place, if this can please himself, I think it will satisfie none else. Let Dr. Hammond decide this business, for in such a cause we may admit a Party to be Umpire