The Contents. 7. it is the produi of pride, pag.45. 8. Itgrati fieth lazy Miniflers, pag.46. 9 it es not of Gods Inflitution, pag.48. io. lt is contrary to Gods word, pag 5 t . i r. It u unfafe, as never uredinScripture times. How fully the fuppoftionisgranted us, pag.58,59. Many Reafons proving that the Apoflles (whode facto are confeffed by Dr. H. to havefetled no fubjebi Prof byters in Scripture times, but one Bi/hop over one ftated Congregation) intendednot the changing of this order afterwards, .pag 63. to 74,&c. More Arguments that Diocefan Bi /hops are noScripture- Ihp, pag 75. They are contrary to the twifh and Apoflolical Govern- ment, _ Pag76,77 Proved by two Arguments more, pag.83,84. The Confefsion of Bpifcopalwriters, pag.8 5,86. Againft Diocefan B:(hops (ofmany Churches) the Tefli- many of Clemens Romanus,p.87. (with Grotius's ex- , pofition,. pag 88. of Polycarps and Ignatius (wbo is full againft them) pag.88. ofIuílin Martyr , and Gregory Neocxfarienfis , pag.92,93. Tertullian, pag93)94. of Clemens Alexandr. and from the late divifton of Parifhes, pag.96. Ninius teftimony cited by Mr. Thorndike of 365. Bi- fhopricks plantedby Patrick in Ireland, pag, 96, 97. .ì lore citedby Ulher, pag.97. The Teflimonies of Councils, pag.98. to 103. Many weighty Confequents of theprovedpoint, pag. t o3. Di s-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=