A33359:285
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.
Our Author would prove the largeness of Basil's Diocese by the distance between Caesarea and Sasima. *. 1He makes much of it and takes the pains to measure the distance between these Towns, or rather, as he says, to make some guess at it out of an Itinerary and Putinger's Tables; yet tells us the distance must be as great at least as between Hippo and Fussala, that so St. Basil's Diocese may be as great at least as that of St Austin's. I think they will prove much alike, for as I have showed that Austin's Diocese was not one foot larger for Fussala, so it will appear that St. Basil's had not the least enlargement upon the account of Sasima. That he might not be out in his measures nor have lost all his labour, two ⟨p. 94⟩things should first have been cleared, neither of which is (or I think can be proved; 1st, That Sasima was in Basil's Diocese, for if it was but only in his Province, how far soever it was from Caesarea, his Diocese can be nothing the larger for it, though his Province might. To prove it in his Diocese I find nothing but his own assertion, that Sasima is said expressly to be taken out of the Diocese of Basil; but where is this said expressly, or by whom, except by himself? The words in the Margin signify no such thing, but only some attempt to deprive a Metropolis of Sasima. For a Metropolis may be deprived of a Town which is in any part of the Province, when another Metropolitan seizeth on it. And I believe our Author is yet more out in taking the Metropolis which Nazianzen speaks of to be Caesarea, when it appears by the Epistle to be rather Tyana. For as the whole Epistle is writ to Basil, so these words cited, after many others by way of sharp expostulation, are directed to him as endeavouring to deprive a Metropolis of this Town, called ironically [Greek or Hebrew]: Now Caesarea was not the Metropolis which Basil would have deprived of Sasima, he earnestly endeavoured to have it annexed thereto; but he would have deprived Tyana of it, if Anthimus the Metropolitan there, had not made a stout opposition. 2dly, He should have proved, that after this part of Cappadocia was divided into two Provinces, Sasima was in that Province which fell to Basil's share (for if it was not in his Province how could his Diocese be any larger for it?)
Our Authour would prove the largeness of Basil's Diocess by the distance between Caesarea and Sasima. *.