A33359:298
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 to return to our Author, and the passage of Basil, insisted on, by which says he, it appears that Isauria was part of Basil's Province; How this appears by any thing therein, I cannot imagine, our Author signifies before that Isauria was a distinct Province, the Metropolis of it (as he supposes) Seleucia, which had a metropolitan and suffragans before, and being now destitute, the Bishops in the Vicinity were careful to provide others. Which being so, that it should be part of Basil's Province seems as incongruous, as if it were said, that the Province of York, is part of the Province of Canterbury: but if this could be digested, ⟨p. 99⟩that one Province is part of another, yet Isauria would rather be part of Amphilochius his province, who (as he tells us) was to constitute a Metropolitan and other Bishops therein, than of Basil's, who is only represented as giving advice about it. Or if giving advice and direction, would prove any thing of this nature, the Papists might think it a good argument, that Africa was part of the Roman Province, because Leo Bishop of Rome gives advise, how Bishops should be there constituted.e
But to return to our Author, and the passage of Basil, insisted on, by which sayes he, it appears that Isauria was part of Basil's Province; How this appears by any thing therein, I cannot imagine, our Author signifies before that Isauria was a distinct Province, the Metropolis of it (as he supposes) Seleucia, which had a metropolitan and suffragans before, and being now destitute, the Bishops in the Vicinity were careful to provide others. Which being so, that it should be part of Basil's Province seems as incongruous, as if it were said, that the Province of York, is part of the Province of Canterbury: but if this could be digested, ⟨p. 99⟩that one Province is part of another, yet Isauria would rather be part of Amphilochius his province, who (as he tells us) was to constitute a Metropolitan and other Bishops therein, than of Basil's, who is only represented as giving advice about it. Or if giving advice and direction, would prove any thing of this nature, the Papists might think it a good argument, that Africa was part of the Roman Province, because Leo Bishop of Rome gives advise, how Bishops should be there constituted.