( 318 ) would have a Bifhop in everyParifb,and fo are againfi Bilbops, that they may be Bithops themfelves ? Andwhat!- s a ParifhBi- fhoprick fo great a prize for our Ambition, and yet is it fo con- ' temptible toyours ?. Arewe proud for feeking to be ParifhBifhops, and do you take it as an empty name or fhadow ? At leaft then confefs hereafter, thatyour Pride is fo much greater then ours, that the Mark ofour Ambition is taken by youto bea low difho- nourable Rate. 4. 5. And 4. I would intreat you impartially to try, whether thePrimitive Apoftolick Epifcopacy fixed in particular Churches were not a Parochial Epifcopacy ? Trywhether I have not pro- ved it before ? And if it were, will you pretend to antiquity, and Apoflolick inftitution,andyet defpife the primitive fimplici- ty,and that which you confefs was fettled by the Apoti,es?Let the Eldeft carry it without any more ado. ,g. 6. And 5. At leaft fay no more that you are for Epifco- pacy, and we againft it : whenwe are for Epifcopacy as well as you. It is only your tranfcendent, or exorbitant fort of Epif- copacy that we are againft. Say not (till that we have no Power of Ordination, becaufe wearenot Bifhops ; but becaufe we are only Bilhopsofone Church. Put the controverfie truly as it is , Whether itbe lawfulfor the Bifbop ofone Church with his Prebyte- ry to'rdain ? Yeaor whether many filch Affciated may Or- dain ? Or rather, whether it be tyed to the Bifbop of many Churches (as you would have it :) that is, Whether Ordination belong to r4rchbifhopsonly ? Is not this the controverfie ? g. 7. And then 6. Why doyou in your Definitions ofEpifco- pacy ( which you very feldom and fparingly giveus) require nomore then a Parochial Epifcopacy, andyet now defpife it as ifit were no Epifcopacy at all ? Tell us plainly what you mean by a Bifhop ? I thought you meant a Primus Presbyterorum, or at leali, a Ruler ofPeople andPs-esbyters?And is not this to be found in a ParifhBifhop,as well as in a B:íhopofmany Parifhes, or Churches ? Change your Defi_-.ition from this day forward, if youmuff havea change of the thing defined, as it feemsyouu mutt. 8. And I wotr'd knowwhether you canprove that it is Ef- fenéial to a B,fhop'ohave more Churches or Parifhes then one? Prove it ifyou] are able. Was not greatGregory ofNaocefarea a Bithop
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=