Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  692 / 846 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 692 / 846 Next Page
Page Background

>co

4P`PENDIX.

.10Tumb.I.

that

are confident

that

you:

can never prove

that

Ignatius fpeaks

of

Dioc

fan

Billions,

but

only

of

the

Bithops

of

particular Churches.

;.

Your talk of [all the Ancient

Fathers avowing

in

termini the

Bithops

foie

Power of ordaining]

doth but difcredit

the

heft

of your Words: Youfuppofe

us

utter

Strangers

both to thofe Fathers, and

the

Englith

Bifhops,

who maintainthat

Presbyters mutt be their Coadjutors

in Or-

dination.

4.

What if

I

should

grant that

all

the Fathers would

have

Bishops

to

have

the

foie

Power óf Ordaining ordinarily, and

for

Order

Sake? And

that

it

is

a Sin

of

Diforder where

unneceffarily

it

is

done otherwife

?

that's nothing to the

Queflion

that'

had in hand

;

which

is,

whether

fuch

Ordination

by

Presbyters be

not

only irregular but null, and whether

an uninterrupted

Succeffîon be

neceffary

to our

Office

?

q.

I plainly

perceive here again,

that you

are

loath to

fpeak our

your Mind

;

but you

teem

to

diffenc

from there charitable Maintainers

of

the

Pto-

teflants: Why

elfe

do

you fet

Ignatius

and the ancient Fathers

as

the

Party that

I

fhould have refpe&ed inttead

of

there,

if

you did not think that

the Fathers

and

thefe

Men were contrary

?

6. My

Bufinefe

was

to

prove

that [according to

the

Principles of the Proteftant

Bifhops

in England,

our Ordination

was

not null,

eo

Nomine, becaufe

without

a

Bithop]

now

I

am blamed for proving

thisby Modern

Writers, -anti

not

Fathers.

If

you will difclaim the Modern

Proteftant

Bifhops

do

not

pretend

to

be of

their Party, but

fpeak plainly

:

If

I

(fill

up my Book with

fuch Citations) then

I

hope

I

was

not

deficient in

bringing the Teflimonies

of

the

Protel

}ant I.pifcopal Divines, and

yet

many more

I

could

cite

to that

end.

7.

To

that of

the Protestants Neceflityenough

is Paid,

till

your

Words are canonical,

of

your

Proof

flronger. I do

not think but there

are

fome

Proteftant

Bifhops

(fa

called at

leafl) in

France

and

Holland

now, that went out of

Britain

and

Ireland,

why cannot

they

ordain them

Bifhops

in their extream

Necefífty

?

Why did

the

angry

Bilhops fo revile ,poor Calvin,

Beta, the

Churches

of

Geneva, Scotland,

and

many others, for

tatting

out

Bifhops, and

up Presbytery, if

all

were

done

on

a jullifiable

Necelfrty

?

But

enough

of

this.

Except.

to.SeF.

uy.

But that there Authors cited by him may be authentical

;

all

the Proteftant Di

vines

of

England,

ate

branded

as

Popilh,

that

fine

the

Reformation

have defended

againft the

Pope that

Bifhops

are

jure

Divino

(for

fo

I

fay

it

was

dire& Popery

that

firft

denied

Bifhops

to

be jure Divino, witnefs the Pope's

and

Papelihs canval:

fing in

the Council of

Trent,

to

opprefs by

Force and

Tyranny,

the

far

major

and

more learned part

of

theCouncilthat contended

forfo many Months withSuffrages,

Arguments, and Proteflations,

Proteftant

like,

to

have

it

defined,

that

Bifhops

were

fore

Divino, and

only the Pope

and

his

Titulan,

and Courtiers

fuffered it

not to be

propounded,

leaf}

it

thould be,

as

certainly

it

would have been, defined;

for

then

Popes and Presbyterians could

not

have lorded

it

fo)

Thus the

chiefeft, and

molt

pious,

and learned

Bifhops

of

our

Englifh Church mull be branded for

Popilh;

Bi-

fhop

Andrews, Mountague, Wbite,

&c.

Reply to

Sea.

ty.

a.

If

you deny the Authors cited by me

to

be

authentick, pretend not to ad-

here to the Epifcopal Proteftants

;

for fure thefe are fuch. z. You do

not

well

to

lay that

(all

the Proteftant

Bilhops are

branded

as

Popilh, that finer the

Reforma-

tion

have

defended

against

the

Pope,

that

Bifhops are

jure Divine) either

thew

the Words where

I

fo

brand them,

or

elfe do

not

cell us

that your

Words are true

(though

in a

matter

of

Fa& before your

Eyes);

we may well

queftion your

Argu-

ment, when

we

find

you

fo

untrue

in reporting

a

plain

Writing.

Indeed our

late

Bilhops

(and

thofe

moll that were molt

fufpe

&ed

to

be

Popilh) did hand molt

up-

on the

Pis

Divinum,

which many of the

firlt

did

either

difclaim

or not maintain:

But it never

came into my Thoughts to brand

all

for Papifls that did

own

it. Do

I not cite

Downame,

and others,

as

Proteftant

Bifhops,

whoyet maintain it

?

yea,

Bilhop

Andrews,

whom you name? this

is

not

fair.

3.

As

for

the

Trent

Quar-

rel

about

Bilhops,

I

fay

but

this

if the Spanilh

Bifhops,

and the

ref}

that

flood

for

the

jus

Divinum

of

Epifcopacy

there,

were no Papifts, then thofe that I

(poke

ofin

England

were none ( much

left

):

And

I

mutt

cry you mercy for

fo

eleeming

them.

Except.

to Seal.

16.

The

;d

Argument

is

from the

uncertainty

of

Suecefïion,

which might have done

the

Hereticks good

Service in

the

old times, when

St. Irenaus

and

Terudlian

mutter

up

againstthem

Succelfioris

of

Catholick

Bithops

that

ever taught

as

the Church then

taught

againft

the Hereticks.

Rep/l.