[ 32 7 ] him fo, becaufe it is Chrifi's Prerogative, which no mortal Man or Council or College is capable of. And if fo, is it not a Papal or Amichriftian Church that thefe Foreign SubjeCts own and are of? whether it be of the French or Italian Form, ,-if one be Antichrifiian , both are fo, w.hen the Claim of UniverfalJurifdittion is the Caufe. · I have voluminoufly deteCted the miftake of thefe deceived Men,who are deluded by the Name Oecumenical, Catholick and Univerfal , which ' they find in, the Councils and Fathers ; and fully proved to them, that it fignified no Councils a~ bove the Imperial or'National ; But difiinguilbed thofe that were Univerfal in that .ooe Et:npire, from the Provincial. 2. The Reformed Church of England taketh the Pariih Communicants to be true Churches, and the Pafiors to have as much of the Overfight as is neceffary to the ConHitu~ion of a· true Poli· tical Church. (Though their Canons finfully fetter them in the £xercife.) But the Foreigil~rs bold the Diocelfes to be the leafi or.loweft f;hurches, and the Pariilies to be qo true C:~urches for want of Bi!hops in them, but only Part§'ofif'Church, that bath a aitbop over them all. ' 3· The Old Church of England owned the Fo– reign Protefiant Churches as true Churches, and their Minifiers as true Pafiors, and own Gomrnu– nion with them. But the Innovators fay, that they have no true Biiliops, becaufe they have not Dio– cefans, and are no true Pafiors if they have not an uninterrupted Succeffion Qf Diocefane Ordina– tion from theApo.fUes ; whereas for fome Hun– dred Years after dle.A_E_Qfiles, there was-no fuch Biihops known in.t~&.World, as were not either , ;, Y4 • ~ongre~ ·~ I I I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=