A33359:236
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.
This is no way certain from Clemens and Hegesippus, and so far from being certain by St. Paul, that his mentioning him as an Apostle makes it rather certain that he was not a Bishop; for the Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are inconsistent, as is acknowledged and proved by an excellent Person of your own. wThe Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent, for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office, charged with the instruction and Government of the whole World, and calling for an answerable care (the Apostles being Rulers, as St. Chrysostom saith, ordained by God, Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities, but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world) but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there, Bishops being Pastors who, as Chrysostom saith, do sit, and are employed in one place. Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office, and he that is fixed to so particular an attendance, can hardly look well after so general a charge, &c. Baronius saith of St. Peter, that it was his Office not to stay in one place, but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world, and to bring those who did not yet believe to the Faith, and throughly to establish believers. If so how could he be Bishop of Rome, which was an Office ⟨p. 73⟩inconsistent with such vagrancy. It would not have beseemed St. Peter the prime Apostle to assume the charge of a particular Bishop, it had been a degradation of himself, a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishopric of Rome, as if the King should become Mayor of London, as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras. And little before, St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome (it holds as well of James's being Bishop of Jerusalem) would confound the Offices which God made distinct, for God did appoint first Apostles, then Prophets, then Pastors and Teachers, wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop, it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon.
This is no way certain from Clemens and Hegesippus, and so far from being certain by St. Paul, that his mentioning him as an Apostle makes it rather certain that he was not a Bishop; for the Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are inconsistent, as is acknowledged and proved by an excellent Person of your own.