A33359:320
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.
Now while Presbyters had this power there could be no Diocesan Churches, whether they exercised it in common, as was showed before, or particularly in their several Churches, as will now be made apparent; For by virtue of these powers the Presbyters were really Bishops, though they had not always the Title, yea, they are called Bishops, as a Learned Prelatist observes, by the ancientest Authors, Clemens, Ignatius, Tertullian, rand have frequently the Names and Titles which some would appropriate to Bishops, and which the Fathers use to express the Office of Bishops by, [Greek or Hebrew] Praepositi, Antistites, Praesidentes, s&c. And so there was as many Bishops really in every Diocese, as there were particular Churches and Presbyters there; And well ⟨p. 111⟩may they be said to be really the same, since they were of the very same Office; for Bishops in the ancient Church, were not a superior Order to Presbyters, but had only a Precedency in the same Order. This some of the most judicious and learned Defenders of Episcopacy assert. And those who hold that Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops differed not in Order, but in degree only, which is the common opinion of Episcopal Divines, and yet contend that Bishops and Presbyters were of a different order, will never be able to prove it. The difference they assign between Bishops and Metropolitans is, that these presided in Synod, and had a principal interest in Ordinations, and what more did the preeminence of ancient Bishops, distinguishing them from Presbyters amount to? It consisted in nothing material but their presidency in Presbyteries, and their power in Ordinations. This last is most insisted on, as making the difference wider, between these than the other. But with little reason all things considered. For those to be ordained, were first to be examined and approved by the Presbyters, [Greek or Hebrew]t, the ordaining of one to the Presbytery was to be [Greek or Hebrew] uIt was a crime for which the greatest Bishop in the World was censurable, to prefer any, or make Ordinations [Greek or Hebrew], as appears by what Chrysostom was accused of, though it is like falsely