Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times

There is nothing to make either of these probable, it is altogether as likely, if not more, that he continued Bishop there with Narcissus for some time; but because Eusebius says nothing of it, I insist not on it. But besides he tells us, Narcissus took Alexander, into the participation of the charge. That signifies Narcissus was not excluded from the Episcopal charge, both had their parts therein. No, but says he, Alexander was the Bishop, Narcissus retained but the name and title only, that is, he was but a Titular, not really a Bishop, and why so? because Alexander, says he, joined with him in prayers, and the Historian says he was not able to officiate by reason of his great age. He was not able it may be to perform all the Offices of a Bishop, but what he was able to do no doubt he performed. Now if they must be but titular Bishops, who perform not personally all the Offices ⟨p. 21⟩of a Pastoral charge (when they cannot pretend [Greek or Hebrew]) how many real Bishops shall we find in the World? But besides the Name and Title, did he not retain the Power and Authority of a Bishop? If not, how came he to loose it? Did he resign, or was he deposed? That he resigned there is not the least intimation in this Historian or any other; nor any instance in the ancient Church, that ever any Bishop divested himself of all pastoral Power upon this account. To have deposed him for his great age had been a barbarous Act, and such as the Church in those times cannot be charged with. No doubt but he retained the Episcopal power, though through Age he could not exercise it in all instances; and if he had not only the Title but the Power, he was really a Bishop, and there were two Bishops at once in one Church, and then this instance is so far from being most disadvantageous, that it serves me with all the advantage I designed in alleging it.

There is nothing to make either of these probable, it is altogether as likely, if not more, that he continued Bishop there with Narcissus for some time; but because Eusebius sayes nothing of it, I insist not on it. But besides he tells us, Narcissus took Alexander, into the participation of the charge. That signifies Narcissus was not excluded from the Episcopal charge, both had their parts therein. No, but sayes he, Alexander was the Bishop, Narcissus retained but the name and title only, that is, he was but a Titular, not really a Bishop, and why so? because Alexander, sayes he, joined with him in prayers, and the Historian sayes he was not able to officiate by reason of his great age. He was not able it may be to perform all the Offices of a Bishop, but what he was able to do no doubt he performed. Now if they must be but titular Bishops, who perform not personally all the Offices