A33359:248
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.
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.
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, saies 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 Judaea (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 Euodias, 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.