Baxter - BV669 B3 1681

( 63 ) withthe power ofEeclefsaficalGovernment were not Parifhes but Dioceffes. Anf. Our E ueltion is, Whether they werefingle Churches asbefore de- fined, or only One Diocefan Church made up of many fuch fingleChur- ches : i. If by Presbyteries be meant manyPresbyters, a College, or Con- fehs, I deny the Confequence ; becaufe every Church that had Govern- ment hadnot fuch aPresbytery ; But one Bithop or Paftor did ferve for fomeofthe leffer Churches, and yetthat one had Governing power. 2. I deny the Major : It was fingle Churches that had then many Elders fet over them. 3. Reader, itfeemeth tome no(malldifparagement to the Dioce- fan Caufe, that the grand Patrons of it fo extreamly differ among them- felves. Dr. Hammond holdeth that in all the Scripture times, no one Church hadany Presbyters at all, fave only one fingle Bithop.. This Bi- fhopDowname feemethtohold, that everyGoverned Church hada Presbyte.. ry. And [noone] and [every one] extreamly differ: Yet either of them would have cenfured him that had gain-fayed them. Hisproof ofthe Antecedentisthis. [They who were appointed to *hole Ci- ties andCountries to labour fo faras they were able the converfion of all that be.. longedto God, were appointed to Dioceffes, not toParifbes But, etc. Anf. Is not here frulbration instead of edification to the Reader, for want of defininga Diocefs and a Para. I thought we had talkt of a Dio- cefanChurch; andhere is a Diocefs defcribedwhich may beafingle Church, or no Church at all as the Bithop pleafeth. Here is not fo much as any Chriftians, much Iefs Congregations of them mentioned as the Bishops Flock : But manyan Apoftle, Evangelift, and Converting Preacher, hath been fet over Cities and Countries to labour mens Converfion, as far as they were able, before they had converted any, or at leaft enow to make a Church ; and after that, before they had converted more than one Affem- bly. TheJefuits in the Indies thus laboured in feveral Provinces, before they were Bishopsofthofe Provinces, or called them Provincial Churches. But now we perceive what he meaneth by a Diocefs, even a fpace of Ground containing Inhabitants to be converted ifwe can. I will fborten myAnfwer to the reft ofhis Reafonings for fuch Diocefan Churches. I will put a fewQueftions, more pertinent than his Queries p. 67. about the Efate offuch Diocefan Churches. Q r. Whether the Apoftles were not, by this .defcription, Bithops, of all the World as their Dioceffes ? And whether therefore it follow that there were no Bifhops under them in particular Churches ? Q 2. WhetherApoftles and Evangeliftsdid not go from City to City, fomerime ftaying fome Months or Years at one, and then palling to ano- ther? Andwhether this made all the interjaceneCountries their Diocefles, changing their Bithops as oft as they thus changed theirHabitations? Q, s. Whether more than one fuch Apoftle or Evangelift were not bothat once, sind faccellively inthe fame place, to labour the converfion of all they could? -And whether therefore there were many Bishops to a Diocefs ? Q4,