Baxter - BV669 B3 1681

into them but were Made by the coalition of many fingle Chur- ches; which'houid not havebeen changed for thatufe infpecie, by alter ing the fpecies of their Paftórs, and depriving them of their Proper Bi- Ihops. In his 5th Chap. He pretendethto confute the Affertion that for the first zoo years, the City Churches were but fingle Congregations. Here we rife toexcept only Alexandria and Rome in all the World : And wecon- fidently extend the time to 15o years, and very probably to zoo ; and moreover fay, that till the fourth Century, molt or verymanyChurches were noother, ifnot longafter in many Kingdoms. All his talk, p. 80. againít JhallomgiddyHeads, that fee no further than their Nofe end, becaufe it was denied that Pattors were fet in fingle Con- gregations toconvert alto the Infidels about, I have nothing to do with For I affect that as all Knittersare bound to endeavour the converfion of fuch, if they have opportunity (not wanting power,) fo thole are molt bound to it that have belt opportunity, which is the Neighbour Bithops. But till men are converted they are no parts of the Church ; no, nor of that particular Church, es nomine, becaufe converted by that Bilhop (as 1110 be proved,) without fome further content and ground. The refit a- bout the largenefsof the Churchof Yerufalem, &c. !hall be confidered in due place. In hisChap. 6. p. i oq.. I delire it maybe noted that he faith, [I do not deny butthat at the ilrfl, and namely in the timeofthe ApoßlePaul, the moll of the Churchesfofoonafter their converfion, didnot each of them exceed thepropor- tion of a populous Congregation. And p. 114. that Metropolitans he thinks were intendedby theApofiles, or at leaf!, fxadentenatura & neceitateflagitante, as Beza faith : And I fuppofe a Diocefan Church will find nobetter ground than a Metropolitan, viz. Humane Prudence, or (I think intended.) In chap. 7. He pretendeth to prove, that in theApolUes times Parifhes began to be diftinguifhed under one only Bifhop, &c. But what's the proof ? Rome and Alexandria are all the Inftances. f But, I, his proofthat t In my Evariflus divided Parifhes about An. loo is worth nothing, as having no Treat. of fufficient evidence, but fabulous reports. z. He allegeth Eufebius, 1. 2. the true c. 15. faying of St. Mark, that he is faid frfl to have confiituted the Chur- Concord' ches ofAlexandria. But this is no proof. 1. Becaufe Eufebius's following I havealfa words out of Philo do makeit molt probable, that by [the Churches of A- difproved lexandria] he meant [theChurches in and about Alexandria,] which pro. the ru- veth not many in the City it felf. z. If he had planted many Churches trances of in the City, it isno proof that he varied fromthe rattice ofthe other A- ttome and potties, who (as All. 14. 23.) placedElders (that is, faith Dr. Hammond dta. P ( 4 ) P ( Bithops) in every Church : Or that the Elders ofeach Church had not the true Paftoral or Epilcopal power of Governing the Flock, (which isall thatwe plead for.) Andif it had been proved that Mark had been over them : itfolloweth not that he was not over them as an Archbifhop, but as ameet Bithop only. 3. Grotius and Dr. Hammond think they prove that K Rome