A33359:246
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.
But those who view the place in Eusebius will see, that he does not say those many of the Circumcision were converted by Simeon, or were under his Government, or belonged to that Church; and so it signifies nothing for his purpose. And so in fine, the account wherewith he concludes his Discourse of Jerusalem will not be admitted by any who impartially consider the Premisses.
As for his other Scripture instances, there is not so much as the shadow of a proof showed by him, that there were near so many Christians as in Jerusalem, or as are in some one of our Parishes, yea, or more than could meet in one place, either in Samaria (where he says it appears not what kind of Government was established, pag. 451.) or in Lydda, which was but a Village, though a fair one, and far from having Sharon for its proper Territory, that being a plain between Joppa and Caesarea; or in Antioch, pag. 452. much less in Corinth and Ephesus which he advisedly passes by, pag. 456.
As for his other Scripture instances, there is not so much as the shadow of a proof shewed by him, that there were near so many Christians as in Jerusalem, or as are in some one of our Parishes, yea, or more than could meet in one place, either in Samaria (where he sayes it appears not what kind of Government was established, pag. 451.) or in Lydda, which was but a Village, though a fair one, and far from having Saron for its proper Territory, that being a plain between Joppa and Caesarea; or in Antioch, pag. 452. much less in Corinth and Ephesus which he advisedly passes by, pag. 456.
Our Author does in effect acknowledge that in Scripture it appears not that these Churches were Episcopal, much less Diocesan; It is to be confessed, says he, pag. 461. that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect an account of the Constitution and Government of the first Churches, &c. Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samaria and of Judea (Jerusalem excepted) than that such were founded by the Apostles; but of their Government and Constitution we have not the least Information. What information then can we have that they were Diocesan or Episcopal? He goes on, And the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confused, as of a Church in fieri, where a great number of eminent persons laboured together to the building of it up; but only from Ecclesiastical Writers, who report that this Church, when it was settled and digested, was committed to the Government of Evodias, and after him to Ignatius, &c. So that after what form the Church at Antioch was constituted does not appear (it may be Congregational and not Diocesan, for any thing this Gentleman can see in Scripture) but only from Ecclesiastical Writers.