A33359:232
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.
Immediately after the choice of the Deacons, Stephen one of the Seven is apprehended [Greek or Hebrew], as soon as ever he was ordained, as if he had been ordained for this alone, saith Eusebius (l. 2. c. 1.) And at the same time the Persecution began which dispersed that Church. Whereas he saith, whatsoever numbers were forced away; it is likely they returned, if he understand it of the strangers driven from Jerusalem, that they returned to fix there, or otherwise than occasionally, it is no more likely nor will be sooner proved than what he asserts a little after (pag. 444.) viz. that the empty Sepulchre preached with no less efficacy than the Apostles.
Immediately after the choice of the Deacons, Stephen one of the Seven is apprehended 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, as soon as ever he was ordained, as if he had been ordained for this alone, saith Eusebius (l. 2. c. 1.) And at the same time the Persecution began which dispersed that Church. Whereas he saith, whatsoever numbers were forced away; it is likely they returned, if he understand it of the strangers driven from Jerusalem, that they returned to fix there, or otherwise than occasionally, it is no more likely nor will be sooner proved than what he asserts a little after (pag. 444.) viz. that the empty Sepulcher preached with no less efficacy than the Apostles.
This is enough to satisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jerusalem. After some trifling about Objections which he forms himself, and then makes sport with, he comes to prove that Jerusalem was a Diocesan Church in the Apostles time. But first he would have us believe that James was the proper Bishop of that Church, and would evince it by two Testimonies, that of Clemens and Hegesippus. But what says his Clemens? He saith not only that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Saviours Ascension, but what I think our Author was loth to mention. If he had given us the entire sentence it might have been better understood. After the Ascension of our Saviour, Peter, James and John, the most honoured by our Lord, would not yet contend for the first degree of honour, [Greek or Hebrew], but chose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem, Apostolorum Episcopum. Ruffinus reads it, This seems to signify that his being made a Bishop there, was some degree of Honour above their being Apostles. A learned Romanist tells us