A33359:249
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 his Ecclesiastical Writers do so contradict one another as renders their testimonies of little value. Nor is there much more reckoning to be made of the traditional account they and others give concerning the Succession and Government of the first Bishops, than this Author makes of Eusebius his traditional Chronology, pag. 454. Some make Evodias the first Bishop and he being dead Ignatius to succeed himf; on the contrary some will have Ignatius to have been the first, and make no mention of Evodiasg; others will have them to have governed that Church both togetherh; some will have Evodias ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul, others report Ignatius ordained by Peter, and some modern ⟨p. 77⟩Authors of great eminency, both Protestants and Papists (not only Baronius but Dr. Hammond) find no more tolerable way to reconcile them, than by asserting that there were more Bishops than one there at once, which quite blasts the conceit of a Diocesan Church there.
But his Ecclesiastical Writers do so contradict one another as renders their testimonies of little value. Nor is there much more reckoning to be made of the traditional account they and others give concerning the Succession and Government of the first Bishops, than this Author makes of Eusebius his traditional Chronology, pag. 454. Some make Euodias the first Bishop and he being dead Ignatius to succeed himf; on the contrary some will have Ignatius to have been the first, and make no mention of Euodiasg; others will have them to have governed that Church both togetherh; some will have Euodias ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul, others report Ignatius ordained by Peter, and some modern ⟨p. 77⟩