('I ) Asto his inftance of the Scythian having but one , Bifhop , the Reafon was, becaufe it was but littleof their Country at firft that were made Chri- ftians, or that were at all in the RomanEmpire : So that theBithop was fet. led atTomi,, in the borders of the Empire (in the Machine part of the Euxine Sea,) that thence hemight have an influence on the reft ofthe Scy- thian over whom theRomans had no power, and where there weremany Cities indeed, but fewChriftians : as may be feen in Theodoret, , Tripart. Nicepbor. and many others. Of his other three or four inftances, .1 íliall after Speak. Chap. 3. lib, z. Hepretends to prove that the feven Afian Churches were Diocefan, and not Parochial, and never defineth a Diocefs and Parilh which is loft labour. Hisfiat Argument is, [Churches, whole Circuit containedCities and Coun- tries adjoinin , were Dioceffes. But, &c. This is beforeanfwered: Our Queftion is, Whether they were as our Piocefan Churches, fuch ashad in thefe Cities and Countries manyAltars andChurches without Bithops under them : Trees, and Houfes, and Fields, and Heathen People, make not Churches, nor yet fcattered Chriftians,. that were Members onlyof the City Church. His proofofthe Minor is, s. ThefeChurches comprized all the Chur- ches of Afia. Anf. Ifhe mean thatall the reft of theChurches of .Afia had no Bifhops but Parifh Presbyters under thefe feven Bithops he Ihould prove it, (and confuteDr. Hammondthat is fo contrarytohim, (had he then lived:) Till then we takeit as a contemptible incredible affertion, that Afia had but feven Bithops, and yet a multitude of Churches: If he mean only that thefefeven were Archbifhops, his impertinency is too palbable. Particularly, he faith, TheChurch cf Epbefus, Smyrna, &F. Contained agreat City, and the Country belonging to it, bc. Anf. We talk ofChurches under Churches, and he talketh onlyof Cities and,Countries; Again, I fay, Let him take his Diocefs of Infidels,. Houfes and Ground, we know no fuch Churches. Page 46. He faith [Cenchrea was fubjeél to the Church ofCorinth, and never had a Bifhop of their own.] But nota fyllable of proof: It is not a Family Church, whichwe fpeak of, therefore he neednot here havementio_ nedthat:But a Churchaffociated for ordinary Communion in God'spublick worship, which cannot be celebrated without a Pallor. Let him prove that Cenchrea was fuch a Church and yet had noBifhop. In §. 6. p. 4a. He would prove that the Circuir of a Church was in the Intention of the Apoflles, orfirfl Founders, the fame from the beginning, before . the divifion. of Churches as after : Which I fhall indue place. difprove: His reafons are, s. Becaufe the whole Church fine the Apoflles days bath fo under- flood the intentionof the Apoflles. Anf. s. This isnot proved. 2. Ithallanone prove thecontrary; that the Apoftles had no intention that Churches thould be o^fined by the limits. of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=