Of CONFORMITY. III very days of the Apofiles, in which they are not found ? Nor, in thematter before us, doch it fignifymuch, whether theScri- ptures infiituted any particular form of Church-Government, in contradiClion to any other or no : tho, if. you will follow Mr. Baxter, you mull think theydid. The .. point is, whether in fact there were h thofe earlydays, Bifh.ops, P;'iefis andDea- cons. Mr. Baxter fays there were. And they were fufficiently ditüinguiíhed from one another. As Deacons were not Priefis, fo all Priefis were notfBifhops. The Bi- fhop was the fisperiour, and had his Pref- byters under him. So that, as to the pe- culiar Office of Bifhops, in the main here is no difference ; andan agreement in the whole matter deliver'd in this propofition that BlPops, Priefis and Deacons, in the fenfe that we all underffand thofe words in. were in the Church from the very be- ginning. Andwhat if they be called Or- ders by others ? If you acknowledge the very thing which is meant in this fen- tence why fhould this word trouble you 5 I think it a very proper word : but if I did not, yet if I acknowledged what Mr. Baxter does concerning Whops and Priefir, I could never anfwer to my felf the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=