A33359:280
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 find nothing alleged to show he had a large Diocese or any at all, but this, the City of Battina was in the Diocese of Edessa, for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it, &c.
I find nothing alledged to shew he had a large Diocese or any at all, but this, the City of Battina was in the Diocese of Edessa, for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it, &c.
Battina had a Bishop of its own, how then can it be said to be in the Diocese of Edessa, unless Province and Diocese be confounded? Edessa was the Metropolis of Mesopotamia, the Bishop of it was the third Metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch, as they are ordered in the ancient Notitia. The Bishop of Battina was one of the many Suffragans belonging to that Metropolitan. How then comes the Diocese of Edessa to be any ways large upon this account? Is the Diocese of Canterbury one foot the larger, because there is a Bishop of Peterborough in that Province? These things are not easily apprehended nor can be well digested.
Battina had a Bishop of its own, how then can it be said to be in the Diocese of Edessa, unless Province and Diocese be confounded? Edessa was the Metropolis of Mesopotamia, the Bishop of it was the third Metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch, as they are ordered in the antient Notitia. The Bishop of Battina was one of the many Suffragans belonging to that Metropolitan. How then comes the Diocese of Edessa to be any wayes large upon this account? Is the Diocese of Canterbury one foot the larger, because there is a Bishop of Peterborough in that Province? These things are not easily apprehended nor can be well digested.
2dly, The greatness of his Revenue is no more apparent, there is nothing to prove it but the riches of that Church, and its great Revenues, and hereof our Author gives us no clear account, no value of the Numismata, nor is there any Evidence in the Council for the Manors he speaks of but only the felling of some wood in a certain place there named. But where there was a Diocesan and Archdeacons, decorum required there should be Manors and vast Revenues for the Bishop. Nor do I quarrel with it, only this breaks the squares a little, and disturbs the correspondence between those and our times; that if the Revenues of that Church had amounted to ten times more, yet the Bishop would scarce have been one jot the richer for it. This will not seem strange to any, who take notice of the ancient Orders, concerning the revenues of an Episcopal Church. The Bishop was to have nothing thereof if he could maintain himself otherwise. When he was necessitous, nothing was allowed him for himself but necessaries, food and raiment