A33359:79
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 alleged Epiphanius, who signifies that other Cities had two Bishops together, and excepts only Alexandria. To which he answers, that Epiphanius cannot mean that all other Cities had two Bishops at a time, nor did I say that he meant this, but his expression imports no less than that it was usual for other Cities to have two Bishops. Nor is there any reason to think that Epiphanius respects only ⟨p. 23⟩the cases alleged; it was quite another case that was the occasion of his words; and diverse other instances might be brought of a different nature and occasion, though this be sufficient to show, that the rule against two Bishops in one City was not inviolable: He adds, I do not see what advantage can be made of this passage.
I alledged Epiphanius, who signifies that other Cities had two Bishops together, and excepts only Alexandria. To which he answers, that Epiphanius cannot mean that all other Cities had two Bishops at a time, nor did I say that he meant this, but his expression imports no less than that it was usual for other Cities to have two Bishops. Nor is there any reason to think that Epiphanius respects only ⟨p. 23⟩the cases alledged; it was quite another case that was the occasion of his words; and diverse other instances might be brought of a different nature and occasion, though this be sufficient to shew, that the rule against two Bishops in one City was not inviolable: He adds, I do not see what advantage can be made of this passage.
This passage shows that there was commonly two Bishops in a City at once, Alexandria is only excepted as varying herein from other Cities. And this is advantage enough for me, and it is enough against him too; and leaves no reason for his pretence that it was only in extraordinary cases. I affirmed it could not be Epiphanius his meaning (as a great Antiquary would have it) that Alexandria was never so divided, as that several parties in it should have their respective Bishops there, and brought several Instances to evince it: for so it was divided in the time of Epiphanius, when the Catholics had Athanasius, the Arians had Gregorius, and then Georgius; and afterwards the one had Peter the other Lucius, and the Novatians had their Bishops successively in that City till Cyril's time.