A33359:99
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.
It is said indeed to belong to the Diocese of Hippo, but I do not find it said to be in St. Austine's Diocese or Bishopric; these are two things and should not be confounded. When it is said to belong to the Diocese of Hippo, so far distant, Diocese is not taken as an Ecclesiastical sense as it is with us, for part of a Country under the Government of one Bishop; but as it was used in Africa in a civil sense, for part of a Province, without respect to one Bishop, or to any one Bishop at all. Some ⟨p. 28⟩parts there called Dioceses had no Bishops, nor were to have any by Decrees of the African Councilsr. Other places called a Diocese had more Bishops than one. Petilian says, that in the place where his Colleague Januarius was Bishop there were 4 Bishops besides, all five in unâ Dioecesis. And thus it was in many other places, particularly in that called the Diocese of Hippo, as I showed by diverse instances, and St. Austin's own Testimony.
It is said indeed to belong to the Diocess of Hippo, but I do not find it said to be in St. Austine's Diocess or Bishoprick; these are two things and should not be confounded. When it is said to belong to the Diocess of Hippo, so farr distant, Diocess is not taken as an Ecclesiastical sense as it is with us, for part of a Countrey under the Government of one Bishop; but as it was used in Africa in a civil sense, for part of a Province, without respect to one Bishop, or to any one Bishop at all. Some ⟨p. 28⟩parts there call'd Diocesses had no Bishops, nor were to have any by Decrees of the African Councilsr. Other places called a Diocess had more Bishops than one. Petilian sayes, that in the place where his Collegue Januarius was Bishop there were 4 Bishops besides, all five in unâ Dioecesis. And thus it was in many other places, particularly in that called the Diocess of Hippo, as I shew'd by diverse instances, and St. Austin's own Testimony.