Baxter - BV669 B3 1681

( 57 ) chem for their Bifhops : when theywere chofen and ordained, they cn- roached on the reft of the oldBithops Diocefs, and alto refuted tocome to the Synods, left their failings Ihould be known, pretending that they mutt fray with their own People. Now the Bifhops that complained of this, didnot alledge, 1. That noBifhop fhould be made but in a City, 2. Nor that when Chriftians multiplyed, they muft not multiply Bithops accordingly, but all beunder their firft Bifhop only, 3. Nor that a new Congregation hadnot as good right tohave and chufe a Bifhop of their own, as the firft City Congregation had. But only to keep ignorant Schif- matical Presbyters from deceiving the Peoplefor theirown exaltation;and from hinderingSynodical Concord, they Decreed that none in their Dio- ceffes fhouldhave Bithops, without the firft Bithops content , And that be- ing fo Confecrated they fhould frequent Synods, and fhould be 'Chopson- ly ofthat People'that firft `chore them, and not encroach on the reft of the Diocefs. And whereas he hence gathereth that the Country Churches [ever the beginning belonged tothe CityWhops.] There were no fuch things as Appendant Country Churches from the beginning of the City Chur- ches : But it'strue, that from the beginningof the Country Peoples Con- version, whenthey were not enow tomake Churches themfelves, theybe- longed to the CityChurches as Members (Even as now the Anabaptifts and Independent Churches confift of the Peopleof Market-Towns, and the adjoyning Country Affociated into one AffembIy.) After that the Country Meetings were but as Oratories or Chappels : Andwhen they came to be enow tomake dinftinaChurches of, force good Bithops had the Wit and Grace to help them to Chorepifcopi, Bithops of their own; butmolt did choofe rather to enlarge their own Poffeffions or Powers, and fet Sübjea Presbyters only overthe People. And that thefe new Bifhopricks muft be by the oldBithopsconfent, is ap- parently a point ofOrder to avoid inconveniences (ifnot ofUfurpation:) For whatpower had the old Bifhop tokeep any Church of Chrift with- out a Bifhopoftheir own, when it was for there good? That he bath forne countenance fromLeo, for theNew Church -Form (without Bithops) I wonder not, whenLeo was one of the hotteft that betimes maintained the Roman Primacy, if not Univerfal Soveraignty. And as theCare againft placing Bithops in fmall places, ne vilefcat no menEpifcopi, came inlate, fo 1. It intimateth that it was otherwife done, at leaft by force before, 2. And it is but the Prelatical grandurewhich Conflantine had puffs up, which is thenalledged as the Reafon of this Re- ftraint. His Argument is, [ That which was judged unlawful by the Canons of ap- provedCouncils, and Decrees ofGodly Bops, was never lawfully, regularly and ordinarilypraílifed: But, &c. I deny the Major. Kneeling at Prayer or Sacrament on the Lords day, theMarriage ofPriefts, the Reading of the Heathens Writings, and abundance Inch-like, were forbidden by fuch ap- provedCouncils., efpecially a multitude of things dependingon the new I Im e-