A33359:93
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.
Whereas in fine he says, These Cases specified were not thought to violate the Rule that allowed but one Bishop to a City. Yet it was thought so by St. Austin, when he excuses his suffering himself to be made Bishop with Valerius, by this, that he knew no• it was forbidden by a rule of the Nicene Council, Quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, and gives this as the reason why he would not so ordain Eradius.
Whereas in fine he sayes, These Cases specified were not thought to violate the Rule that allowed but one Bishop to a City. Yet it was thought so by St. Austin, when he excuses his suffering himself to be made Bishop with Valerius, by this, that he knew no• it was forbidden by a rule of the Nicene Council, Quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, and gives this as the reason why he would not so ordain Eradius.
Next he would prove, that this provision for a Successor does not destroy that Rule, by an instance, I need not transcribe it at large, the sum of it is this, when the Government is Monarchical, if it fall out once (in many Ages, as it did in England once in above 500 years) that another King be crowned, besides him who hath the Throne; yet it will be true enough, that it is the rule of those Kingdoms to have but one King. To which I say briefly, if it be usual to have two Kings in such a Government, it will scarce be thought true, that it is the inviolable Rule of those Kingdoms, to have but one King. And then how this instance will suit his purpose ⟨p. 27⟩let those judge who take notice, that, I have already proved it usual in the ancient Church for Cities in all parts to have two Bishops at once.
Next he would prove, that this provision for a Successour does not destroy that Rule, by an instance, I need not transcribe it at large, the sum of it is this, when the Government is Monarchical, if it fall out once (in many Ages, as it did in England once in above 500 years) that another King be crowned, besides him who hath the Throne; yet it will be true enough, that it is the rule of those Kingdoms to have but one King. To which I say briefly, if it be usual to have two Kings in such a Government, it will scarce be thought true, that it is the inviolable Rule of those Kingdoms, to have but one King. And then how this instance will sute his purpose