( 53 ) an this be fo, no doubt but the Power of Ordination is in Presbyters, as fuch, though theyare not to exercife it alone, nor without or againft the Bitbop (And fo formerly: they were not to Preach, or Baptize, nor Congregatethe Church without him.) For why cannot a Lay-man Ordain with the Bifliop but becaufe he hath no fuch authority ? And Cap. 5. as to the power of yuriseltdion he faith the fame, p. t so. Ili. [1 denynot Presbyters (which havecharge of fouls) to have YurifdiE ion; both feverall in their Parifhes, and jointly in Provincial Synods. And Ihave co feffed before, that Presbyters have with and under the Bops exercifed fame urifdielion. Igrant that Godly Bithops, before they had the countenance and Affiance of Chri/tiun Magiflracy * and directionof ClerijlianLaws ; ufed in all *TheP-re. matters ofmoment, to confult with their Clergy. This waupraFtifed byGyprian, fates pre_, Ambrofe alfo (in I Tim. 5, i.) teachers, that there was a time when nothing tense for' was done without the advice of the Presbyters; which therefore by Ignatius are on;_ All- called theCeunfellors andCo-afefforsof the Bi(hops: Which courfe if it were ufed the caufe All, as it would cafe the Bishops burden very much, fo would it nothing detrota is laid on from their fuperiority in Governing. Magi_ And page 115. [The thing which I was to prove, if it had beenneedful, (rates; was, that whereas Presbyters did Governeach one the People of a Parifh and that privately, t theBishop Governeth the People of the whole Diocefs and that f Dote a publickZly. publick So that both Ordination and Jurifdiu Lion belong to the Presbyters Of Church fice; though in the exercife of it they mint be ,governed themfelves. Is r; °bgo. not this the very film of Archbilhop Vjher's Model of PrimitiveEpifco- privately r' pacy, which we offered his Majelty and the Bithops at firft, ,for Concord, what mea- and the Bifhops wouldnot once take it into their Confideration, nor fo netshe by much as vouchfafe to talk of it, or bring it under any deliberation? thatwhicà. When, alas, wepoor undertroddenPerfons,- not only defined to be low goodbe our feives, but, yielded to,fubmit to all their heights, their Lordfhips, fence? sk Parliament dignities, grandure, and to let them alone with their (real) private foie-Ordination and jurifdiftion over us poor Presbyters, and to have manm ay;- takenas much care of the People as they would; fo we could but have ob. rulelÿri rained any tolerable degree of Government to be fetled in each particu that is, by lar Church, either inall the Presbyters orin one Bishop, andnot havehad "Counfell: all the particular Churches deprived of Bithops and all the Paftoral ju- J1d ='e=um rifdiaion.. publiettm is But our great Controverfie is handled by Bilhop'Downame inhis fécond the Oth. tiers j udgé- Book, wherein he laboureth to prove that the Bifhops Church, or rather nient. Charge, wasnot a Parifh, buta Diocefs. And firft, page 4. he giveth us a fcheme of theScripture acceptionof the word [Church] as preparato- ry to his defgn : In which thereare many Texts cited, not only without any thew of proof, that they fpeak of what heafTìrmeth them to fpeak, . but contrary to the p a n ìcop2 of thi:c places. An he tells us that the word [Chnrcn] t' 'u 1 in S i.;i e. for th. (71,u-,eh 4,1 litre Conregated-in art,' VJtiverfal o, )ccr:r / t usnot one.Text fur.inftance,, which+
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=