C i79 ) 2, Bifhop Drrvnam; 3. Bithop yew!, 4. Saravia, Y. Bithop Alley, 6. BithopPilltinton, 7. Bifhop Bridges, 8. Bithop fon, 9. Alexander Novel, io.Grotists (their friend then ) it, Mr. Cyfenhal, 12. TheLord Digby , 13 . Bithop Dave - nant, 14. Bithop Prideaux , 15. Bifhop Andrews, 16. Chit - dingttorth, 17. (Towhich I now add) Bifhop Bromhall (of Schism) 18. Dr.Fern, 19. Dr.Steward (in his anfwer to FoRx- tains letter ( thefe ofthe later, or prefent fort) 2o. And Bi- fhop VJ'er (whofe judgement of it is lately publifhed by Dr. Bernard at his own delire) 2.1. And Mr. Mafon (in a Book of of purpofe for juftification of the Reformed Churches) bath largely pleaded this caufe. 22. And Dr. Bernard faith that Dr. Overall was judged not only to consent to that Book ,but to have a hand in it. 23. And no wonder when even Bancroft himfelf ( the violenteft of all the enemies of them called `Tari tans in thofe times) is faidby Spotswood (thererecited In Dr, Bernard) tobe of the famemind, and to give it as his judge- ment, that the Scotch Ministers ( then to be Confecrated Bi- Mops) were not to be reordained, becaufe the Ordination of Presbyters was valid. Se&. 5. ThefeNovel Prelatical perfons then, that fo far dif- fent frrom the whole ftream ofthe Ancient Bithops and their ad° hetents,have little reafon to expea that we fhould regard their judgement above the judgement ofthe Englifh Clergy, and the judgement ofall the Reformed Churches.Ifthey cangive us fuch Reafons as fhould conquer our modeftie,and perfwade us tocon- demn the judgement of the Plelates and ClergyofEngland,& all other Churches of the Proteftants,and adhere to a fewnew men ofyefterday,that dare fcarcelyopen the face of .heir own opini- ons: we fhall bow to their Reafons when we difcern them: But they muft.not- expe& that their Authority thall fo far prevail Sea. 6. And indeed I think themoft of this caufe is carried on in the dark : What Books have theywritten toprove our Ordi- nation Null ? and by what Scripture Reafons do they prove it ? The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity, if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Chrif{,_ And they are not offuch exceffive Modefly, and backwardnefs todivulge their accufations, but fure we might by this time have expected more thenone volume from them, to have proved Aa 2 nts
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=