A33359:138
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.
I was a little surprised to read this, and see Athanasius cited for it. For I knew that Athanasius reckons 95 Bishops from Egypt besides himself, at the Council of Sardica; and others from Africa, wherein Libya and Pentapolis are usually included; and it was never known that a major part or a third of the Bishops in a Country, did come to a Council at such a distance as Egypt was from Sardica. It is scarce credible that Athanasius would so far contradict himself, as to say there were not so many Bishops in all those three Countries, when he had signified there were many more in one of them. Some mistake I thought there must be, and consulting the place I found it not entirely represented. ⟨p. 39⟩There is this Clause (immediately following the words he cites) left out, [Greek or Hebrew], none of these accused me, whereby it appears that the meaning of the whole passage is this, there was an hundred Bishops in the Diocese of Egypt who appeared not against him, or that favoured him. But those who favoured Arius (whom he calls Eusebians) and Meletius, to say nothing of Coluthus (for into so many parties was that Country then divided) are not taken into the reckoning; otherwise it would have amounted to many more than an hundred. Sozomen says the Bishops there, who took Arius his part were many, [Greek or Hebrew]d, and in Athanasius there is an account of many Meletian Bishops by namee; and in Epiphanius it is said, that in every Region through which Meletius passed, and in every place where he came he made Bishopsf.
I was a little surprized to read this, and see Athanasius cited for it. For I knew that Athanasius reckons 95 Bishops from Egypt besides himself, at the Council of Sardica; and others from Africa, wherein Lybia and Pentapolis are usually included; and it was never known that a major part or a third of the Bishops in a Countrey, did come to a Council at such a distance as Egypt was from Sardica. It is scarce credible that Athanasius would so far contradict himself, as to say there were not so many Bishops in all those three Countreys, when he had signifyed there were many more in one of them. Some mistake I thought there must be, and consulting the place I found it not intirely represented.