'Eiders ordained to it, according to the Apoftles Rule. And that it was a Parifh with one Preybvter fubja} toCorinth, is all unproved, and therefore to no purpofe. 5. Yet 1 prove that the Engl(hPrelacy on their own grounds, is not °lureDiviso in that it is against the word of God, accord- ing to their own interpretation; of which next. Ar.gum. i o. Hat Epi, epacy a+hichis contrary to the word T of Jod, or Apoffolical Inflitution, according to their own interpretation, isnot to be reflored. Blot f is is the late Englijh Epifcepacy : therefore, &c. I prove the Minor (tor the Major needeth none : ) according to their own interpretation ofTie. t.5. andother Texts Every City fhould havea B*íhop, ( and if it may be, a Presbytery ) ( And fo many Councils havedetermined, only when they grew greater, they except Cities that were too (mall but fo did not Paul) But the late Epi fcopacy ofEngland is contrary to this for one Bifhop only is over many Cities. if therefore they will-needs haveBpifeopacy, they dhouldat leaf" have had a Bifhop in every City : and though we donot approve 4confining them to Cities, yet this would be much better then as they were : for then i. They would be nearer their charges,and within reach of them. 2. And they would have (mailercharges,. which they might be more capable of overfeeing ; for there would be ten or 'twenty B ("sops for one that be now. If they fay' that except Bath and Wells>,Coventryand Lic! f;Id, or fume few, they have but one Ci- ty. I aniner, its not ;o. For every Corporation or Burrough- To.un is R; u;y T'',^<s;and herefore fh 'uldhave a Bifhop.Let them theref re either prove that a Market Town, a Burrough, a'Cor- poration, is no x0,14, or el e let .. every oneof there Towns. and Burroughs have a rlfhop,'o govern that Townwith the Ne'gh- bouring V Ilges by the content, and help of the Presbyters of thefe Vil age?, i according to their own grounds.) And if it were fo, they would be nomore then Clatlical ütfhopsat moft. Pe heps they 'le fay that, whilewe pretend to take down Bi- fhops, we dobut let up more, and would have many for one, °" whilewe would have every Corporationor t'arifh to have a Bi- fhop. To which i ant-vier, its true : but then it is not the 'fame fw fort of Bifhops which we would exclude and which we would H 3 multiplyo
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=