>co 4P`PENDIX. .10Tumb.I. that are confident that you: can never prove that Ignatius fpeaks of Diocfan Billions, but only of theBithops 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 Coadjutorsin 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 uninterruptedSucceffîon 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 Maintainersof the Pto- teflants: Why elfe doyou 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, andyet many moreI 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 themBifhops in their extreamNecefífty ? Why did the angryBilhops 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 andPapelihs 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, andmolt pious, and learned Bifhops of our Englifh Church mull be branded for Popilh; Bi- fhop Andrews, Mountague, Wbite, &c. Reply toSea. 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 thePope, that Bifhops are jure Divine) either thew the Words where I fo brand them, or elfe donot cell us that yourWords are true (though in a matter ofFa& 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 citeDowname, 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 uncertaintyof Suecefïion, which might have done the Hereticks good Service in the old times, when St. Irenaus and Terudlian mutter up againstthem Succelfioris ofCatholick Bithops that ever taught as the Church then taught againft the Hereticks. Rep/l.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=