Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times

But what is there in this so disingenuous and shameful? Does not Epiphanius say this, and our Examiner acknowledge it^b? Ay, but M. B. means that there were not only two Bishops, but their distinct Churches in this City. Well, and does not Epiphanius give him suffici-ground for it? Does he not tell us that Meletius made Bishops, who had their [Greek or Hebrew] in every place where he came? Does he not signify that the Meletians in Alexandria had their distinct Churches or Meetings both in the time of Alexander and Athanasius? says he not particularly of Meletius that being familiar with Alexander he stayed long in that City, having [Greek or Hebrew] a distinct Meeting with those of his own Party? Were there not innumerable Cities in that Age which had two Bishops and their Churches, some three or four at once (those of the Arians, the Donatists, the Novatians, the Meletians, &c. besides those who were styled Catholics) Would this Gentleman take it well if M. B. should tell him, that he who denies this is disingenuous if he know it, and hath some reason to be ashamed if he know it not? Ay, but Epiphanius was deceived in this account of the Meletians, and mis-represents them. Indeed our Examiner makes as bold with Epiphanius (a Bishop of great Zeal and Holiness, a Metropolitan, a famous Writer (as he does with M. B. charging him with much weakness (as one easily imposed upon) many oversights, gross mistakes, diverse absurd things, and such stories, that he will scarce wish worse to his Adversary, than to believe him^c. Nor does Epiphanius alone fall under his censure in his Vindication of the Primitive Church (as he calls it) he goes near to accuse more particular Persons (Bishops amongst others) of eminency in the ancient Church, than he defends; so that one ⟨p. 52⟩may suspect his design was, not so much to defend eminent Bishops, as great Bishoprics such as the ancient Church had none, and to run cross to M. B. more than to vindicate any.

But what is there in this so disingenuous and shameful? Does not Epiphanius say this, and our Examiner acknowledge it^b? Ay, but M. B. means that there were not only two Bishops, but their distinct Churches in this City. Well, and does not Epiphanius give him suffici-ground for it? Does he not tell us that Meletius made Bishops, who had their in every place where he came? Does he not signifie that the Meletians in Alexandria had their distinct Churches or Meetings both in the time of Alexander and Athanasius? sayes he not particularly of Meletius that being familiar with Alexander he stayed long in that City, having a distinct Meeting with those of his own Party? Were there not innumerable Cities in that Age which had two Bishops and their Churches, some three or four at once (those of the Arians, the Donatists, the Novatians, the Meletians, &c. besides those who were styled Catholicks) Would this Gentleman take it well if M. B. should tell him, that he who denies this is disingenuous if he know it, and hath some reason to be ashamed if he know it not? Ay, but Epiphanius was deceived in this account of the Meletians, and mis-represents them. Indeed our Examiner makes as bold with Epiphanius (a Bishop of great Zeal and Holiness, a Metropolitan, a famous Writer (as he does with M. B. charging him with much weakness (as one easily imposed upon) many oversights, gross mistakes, diverse absurd things, and such stories, that he will scarce wish worse to his Adversary, than to believe him