A33359:80
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.
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.
This passage shews 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 Catholicks 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.
He answers however I do not see why that learned Antiquary's opinion may not be maintained against this Gentleman's objections, he says that Alexandria was divided before Epiphanius his time between several Bishops (I said in Epiphanius's time) it cannot be denied. But that is not the thing Epiphanius speaks of, but that before the Election of Theonas against Athanasius, there were never two opposite Bishops as in other Churches.
He answers however I do not see why that learned Antiquarie's opinion may not be maintained against this Gentleman's objections, he sayes that Alexandria was divided before Epiphanius his time between several Bishops (I said in Epiphanius's time) it cannot be denied. But that is not the thing Epiphanius speaks of, but that before the Election of Theonas against Athanasius, there were never two opposite Bishops as in other Churches.