ofrer us the definition of a Bithop (which feww of them do) it is fuchas_ neither fuppofeth any more Churches than one to be his Charge, nor any Presbyters under him at all ; but only a Power of Ordaining Presby. ters, and ruling them when he hath them, whether in one Church or more. And I find that they are fo far from proving that ever the Apofrles.. appointed a diftin t Officeof Presbyters which hadnot the power. of the. Keys over the People, inforo intcriòreer exteriore (as they calf them-) but had only power to Teach and Worfhip, under Bifhops as a fuperiorOf ficeor Order, as that they prove not any fuch tohave ever beenunder the Apoftles themfelves ; and rome of themfelves do plainly deny it : Nor do they prove that long after the Presbyters were any more fubjeet to the Bithops, thanthe Deacons are now tathé Archdeacon, orthe Bithops to the Archbifhop, who are of the fame Order. So that whoever elfe . they fpeak to, they fay nothing to me, and feem not to know where.. the Controverfie lyeth, viz. r. Whether, a Bifh"cp of the Ionefi rank(being, natlrchbif1.op, or havingnoBithops under him) over many Churches, (or Societiesof Chriftians ¡fated under their proper Paftors, or Presbyters,. for ordinaryperfonal Communion in all God's publick Worfhip,).. be of Divine, or Lawful Humane, Institution? z. Whether an-Order or Office- of Presbyters thathave not the power of the Keys even in foie exteriore, be of Divine, orLawful Humane lnthtut on? (whom for brevity I fhail- hereafter call half.Prerbyters.) So that the Qneftion is not, whether one Man was after fometime calledpeculiarly the Bifhop,and intheCame Church fate over Presbyters ofthefame Office, as Archpresbyters, or as Archdea. cons over Deacons, orArchbifhops over Bithops; Nor yet whether there . wereor should be a General fort of Bithops (or, Archbifhops) over the Bifhops of particular Churches ? But whether any Rated Body Wör. fhiping Chriftians, as aforedefcribed (like our Parillì.=Churches that have 'mum altare) fhould be without a Bithop oftheir own,, or without a Paftor that bath the threefold power before defcribed, ofLeading thePeople in Doftrine Worthip and Difcipline, called the power of the Keys? And whether he be a true Presbyter or Minifter ofChrift that wants this pow- - er? And whether they that depofe theParilhMinifters of this power,.dci not degradethePresbyters, nullifie theChurches under thetas, anddepofe the ancient fort of Epil opácy quantum in fe? and let upanother Humane fort of Churchescalled .Diocefan, and of Archbifhops turned into Bi. ¡hops, infimi graduo, intheir ftead, together with a new Species of half..' Presbyters? r._ How far whitgif's Difputations againft Cartwright are guilty of this ro rgtfr; overlooking the true Qjefkion, I leave to the Reader i Only I molt fay., for him, that when his Adverfarie ftandeth molt upon the denial of all fuperior Epifcopacy, it was his part to prove what was denied.. And I need fay no more than thatWiitgift oft profefieth (ai Dr. Stilitngfeet bath coilefted out of him,) that Godbath iii Scripture prefcribed no one fon- d
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=