A33359:310
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.
He denies not, that the generality of Bishops, for a long while after the Apostles, had but one Congregation to Govern. 1What then? says he, If all the Believers in and ⟨p. 106⟩about a City would hardly make a Congregation, that is to be ascribed to the condition of those times. Dioceses with him, were largest in the first times; but Bishops being still multiplied, they became less and less, and so were very small and crumbled into very little pieces in the fourth and fifth Ages. This is the tendency of his discourse all along. Thus Dioceses must be largest, when a Bishop had but one Congregation; but in after ages when he had more Congregations under his inspection Dioceses were very small. If he will stand to this, our differences may be easily compromised. Let him and those of his persuasion, be content with the Dioceses in the first ages, when he counts them largest; and we shall never trouble any to reduce them to the measures of the fourth and fifth ages, when in his account they were so lamentably little, and crumbled so very small.
He denies not, that the generality of Bishops, for a long while after the Apostles, had but one Congregation to Govern. 1What then? says he, If all the Beleivers in and ⟨p. 106⟩about a City would hardly make a Congregation, that is to be ascribed to the condition of those times. Dioceses with him, were largest in the first times; but Bishops being still multiplyed, they became less and less, and so were very small and crumbled into very little pieces in the fourth and fifth Ages. This is the tendency of his discourse all along. Thus Dioceses must be largest, when a Bishop had but one Congregation; but in after ages when he had more Congregations under his inspection Dioceses were very small. If he will stand to this, our differences may be easily compromized. Let him and those of his perswasion, be content with the Dioceses in the first ages, when he counts them largest; and we shall never trouble any to reduce them to the measures of the fourth and fifth ages, when in his account they were so lamentably little, and crumbled so very small.