Baxter - Houston-Packer Collection BX5151 .B3 1659

X I 9) preached ordinarily : And 4. We are d efirous that Bihops (hall continue as Preachers, but net as Diocefan excluders ofParochial Church- Difcipline. Sea. 22. objeet. By pretending to agree with them that fay there were no Presbyters in Scripture times, youwould put down Presbyters, and then the Govern- ment of the Church will be fuchas you blame. Anf. It is the thing I pleadfor, that every Church may have fuch Bithops a theyhad in the Apeflles days, andnot meer (new deviledPresbyters) that are ofanother office and order: Se& 23.objea. Biflaops had Deacons toattend them in theScripture times, though not Presbyters; there- fore it follows not that Bifhops had then but One Con- gregation. Anfw. Yes beyonddoubt : For Deacons could not, anddidnot perform the Pafloral part in the wholepub- lick worfhip ofanyflared Churches. They didnot preach ( s Deacons)andpray andpraife God in the publick Affemblies, and adrninifier the Sacraments : lt's no; affirmed by them that are againfi us : therefore there were no more churches then Bthops. Sea. 24. objeU. But what doth your Arguing make againft the other Epifcopal Divines that arenot of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scri- pture times r Anfsv. i . Other Arguments here are ,f.s much againft them, though this be not (if they maintain thatfort of Eptfcapacy which 1 oppofe.) 2. They alto confefs the fmaleefs of Churches in Scripture times : (a's i have ¡hewed out ofBifhop Downam;) and that is it that I plead for. Sat .2 S.objebt. But ifyou would have all reduced to the ftate that de faElo the Church Government was in in Scripture times,you wouldhave (as but one Church to a Biihop, fo) but One Bithop to aChurch ; as Dr.H. Difrert4 c.19,20,21,22. hathproved copioufly, that is, (i2) that