( 356 ) caute, that what bath been pleaded twenty times againft it, namely, That fpeaking ofone City the Scripture (till calls it the Church ofthat place, but fpeaking ofa Province as Jesdea, Galilee, Samaria, Galatia, Macedo- nia, it fpeaks ofthe Churches of them, which evidently proves, that it knows nothing ofa DioceiTin, Provinci- al or National Church; he produced' in the juftiñcati- on of it, becaufe he faith, that it is evident thecae, that there was but one Church in one City, whichwas never denyed. There were indeed thenmany Bijhops in one Church, `Phil. i. i. 4ls 2o. 28, And afterwards when one Church had one Biíhop only, yet there were two Bifhops inone City, which requires two Churches as Epiphanus affirms, A Ase4PAg44 J!,'o òh?xó&res f ' sys áa ¿mat 7remrs keref. 68. S. 6. ' For .Alexandria never had two Bifhops as other Cities bad. Whether he intend two Bifhops in one Church, or two Churches in one City , all is one to our pur- pofe. But the Dr. I prefume makes this obfervation rather artificially to prevent an Objet ion againft his main Hy- potheffs, then with any defign to ftrengthen it thereby. For he cannot but know how frequently it is pleaded in oppofition unto any :J atioaal Church State, as unto its mention in the Scripture. For he that ihall (peak ofthe Churches, in Efja , Suf lk, Hartfordfhire, and fo of ether Counties, without the leaf} intimation of any ge- neral Church unto which they íhould belong, would be judged to fpeak rather the Independent then theEp(o- pal Thaleet. But
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=