A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

CHAP. XI. (Book 11)

Objections against Ordinations by Presbyters answered. 1. That it is against the Canons. So is Episcopal Ordination. 2. It destroys the Line of Succession, answered in Seven Particulars. 3. The Case of Ischyras consi∣der'd. A Passage in Jerom explained.

I Will briefly reflect upon the most material Objections that are made against the Ordination I plead for.

Object. 1. Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is condemned by the Old Canons.

Answ. 1. Many things are reserv'd to the Bishops by the Old Canons meer∣ly to support their Grandeur.* 1.1 For this reason the Consecration of Churches, the Erecting of Altars, the making of Chrysm, the Reconciling of Penitents,

the Vailing of Nuns, &c. were appro∣priated to the Bishops. All this is in∣geniously acknowledged by the Coun∣cil of Hispalis — Let the Presbyters know that the power of Ordaining Pres∣byters and Deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See, by virtue of novel Ecclesiastical Constitutions* 1.2. They add, that this was done to bear up the dig∣nity of the Bishops† 1.3.

For the same reason the Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops, were restrain∣ed from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch‖ 1.4.

For the same reason 'twas decreed in the Council of Sardis, A. D. 347. That no Village or lesser Town must have a Bishop, nè vilescat nomen Episcopi.

2. Episcopal Ordinations also, as they are now managed, will prove Nullities by the Old Canons.

The Ancient Canons, call'd the A∣postles, which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at* 1.5 Constantino∣ple, do depose all Bishops that are cho∣sen by the Civil Magistrate.

Can. 29.* 1.6 If any Bishop obtains a Church by means of the Secular Powers, let him be deposed, and separated from Communion with all his Adherents.

This Canon is revived by the second Council of Nice* 1.7, which the Greeks call the Seventh General Council.

All our English Bishops are chosen by the Magistrate, and not by other Bishops, or the Presbyters and People of their Diocess. The King's Writ of Conge d'Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to choose their Bishop, is only matter of form, for the King chooseth pro∣perly, and the Dean and Chapter can∣not reject the Person whom he recom∣mends: nor are they the just Repre∣sentatives of the Clergy and People of the Diocess, whose Suffrages were re∣quired of old in the designation of a Bi∣shop† 1.8.

Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermed∣dle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion.* 1.9 Let not a Bishop, Pres∣byter, or Deacon, assume worldly Cares: and if he doth, let him be deposed. Bi∣shops at this time were not Judges in Civil Matters, nor Ministers of State, as being a thing inconsistent with their Office, 2 Tim. 2.4.

Can. 80. adds,* 1.10 A Bishop must not en∣gage in Publick Administrations, that he may give himself to the Work of the Ministry; Let him resolvedly decline these, or be Deposed; for no Man can serve two Masters.

The Church of England doth not ob∣serve the Canons of the first General Councils, which some‖ 1.11 would have us believe are the measures of her Refor∣mation next the Scripture.

The fourth Canon of the Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Bishop to be,* 1.12 by all the Bishops of the Pro∣vince, at least by three, with the Con∣sent of the absent Bishops expressed in writing. I never knew the Consent of all the Bishops of the Province requi∣red, much less expressed in Writing, be∣fore

the Consecration of English Bi∣shops.

* 1.13 Can. 5. Requires Provincial Coun∣cils twice a year. This is not obser∣ved.

* 1.14 Can. 6. and 7th, establish the Rights and Priviledges of Metropolitans.

Quaere, Whether Austin the Monk, whom the Pope made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, did not wrongfully invade the Rights of the Brittish Bishops (over whom Pope Gregory could give him no just Power, notwithstanding his pretend∣ed Grant, mentioned by* 1.15 Bede) which are not restored to this day: and if so, whether this doth not make a Canonical Nullity in the whole Succession of Eng∣lish Bishops, who derive their Line from that usurping Prelate.

Can. 15 and 16th,† 1.16 forbids Ministers to remove from the Church in which they were Ordained.

I might mention several other Canons in this Council, which are not observed, as the third, the eleventh, the four∣teenth, (which in the Greek is the eigh∣teenth)

the nineteenth and* 1.17 twentieth, which forbids kneeling upon the Lord's days.

No more are the Canons of the Great Council of Chalcedon observed.

Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships, and to inter∣meddle with Secular Affairs.

Can. 7.† 1.18 is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs, or recei∣ving Secular Honours, upon pain of Excommunication. Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age.

One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of them‖ 1.19. That Politick Ene∣my of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and

Dominion would be with that humble Mortification, and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires. He that had been a* 1.20 READER in the Church before he came to the Empire, could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Sa∣viour to his Apostles, Matth. 20. 25, 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, but it shall not be so among you.

Can. 10. * 1.21Deposeth all obstinate Plu∣ralists.

This Canon, if executed, would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists, that heap Pelion upon Ossa, Steeple upon Steeple, as if they would mount to Hea∣ven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions.

I only produce these Canons ad ho∣minem, to shew how unreasonable 'tis to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters, when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations.

We judge it more ingenuous to dis∣own their Authority over us, as being made by such as had no power to give

Universal Laws to the Church, then pretend Submission to them, as they do, who act in open Contradiction to them. If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons, let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone.

Object. 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrup∣ted Succession down from the Apo∣stles.

Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Ar∣gument of the Papists against the first Reformers. They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations, be∣cause they wanted this Succession. It is urged by Bellarmine, De Sacram. Ordinis. cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther, Ep. Dedic. praefix. Operibus e∣jus.

The same Argument is used by Par∣sons, the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England, part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton, Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art. 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler, p. 274, 275. Turrian the Je∣suite writ a great Book de Ordinationi∣bus Ministrorum Ecclesiae, against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches. The Sum of all his Arguments is this

of the Succession, which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel,* 1.22 All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordi∣nary Succession of Bishops, under the Ro∣man Pontiff, the visible Head of the whole Church: but no Protestant Ordi∣nations are such; therefore no Prote∣stant Ordinations are lawful, but they are void, null, and meerly Laic. This Ar∣gument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations; but with this Addition, That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession, which adds no great Reputation to it.

2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers.* 1.23 Sadeel calls it, praecipuum ad∣versariorum Argumentum; he challenges them to produce some Scripture to con∣firm it by. Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him, that the Suc∣cession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine, and not of Persons; which Suc∣cession of Doctrine failing in the Ro∣mish Church, the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass. These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Gene∣ration of immortal Successors.

He further proves, that the Ordina∣ry Succession of Ministers may be in∣terrupted by Scripture-Examples;* 1.24

as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely, to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made, 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel, God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them, though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine. Nay, Christ himself coming to re∣form his Church, chose unto himself Apostles, not from the Priests, but from other Families. He did not ob∣serve the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church.

To which I may add, That the Ro∣man Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church, without regard to Li∣neal Succession.* 1.25 Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind; Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church, it must be in the Jewish Priesthood, which was entailed upon one Family; but the Church remained a true Church, though the regular Succession was destroy∣ed.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford, the Martyr, to Dr. Harpsfield; You shall not find,* 1.26 saith he, in all the Scripture, this your essential part of Suc∣cession of Bishops. In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit.

Dr. Fulk saith,* 1.27 If the Truth of Do∣ctrine be necessary to prove a true Church, the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also.

Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point. Field of the Church, II. 6. & III. 39.

Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a three∣fold Succession. The first of Persons and Doctrines, in the primitive Church. The second of Persons alone, among Infi∣dels and Hereticks. The third of Do∣ctrine alone. And thus our Ministers, saith he, succeed the Apostles; and this is sufficient. For this Rule must be re∣membred,* 1.28that the power of the Keys, that of Order and Iurisdiction, is tied by God, and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine.

Dr. White largely confutes this pre∣tended Succession in his defence of the way to the true Church† 1.29. So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White‖ 1.30.

Thus we see the vanity of this pre∣tended Succession, who they be that maintain it, and who are the Opposers of it. It's one of the Pillars of the Po∣pish Church, which supports that tot∣tering Fabrick.

The Arguments against our Ordina∣tion must needs be very defective, when no other can be found, but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations. It's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents. Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads?

3. The violent Assertors and Defen∣dants of this Opinion, little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England; for it's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for, hath been broken again and again. One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain. All our Bishops, as such, derive their Succession from Rome. Now if we can find any Inter∣ruption in the Succession of Bishops there, it Nullifies all the Administrati∣ons of those that depend upon them. If the Pope succeeds Peter, as Darkness

doth Light; if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar, proves to be the Anti∣christ; if many Popes were Hereticks, Sodomites, Idolaters, Conjurers, Whore∣mongers, Murderers, &c. as some of their own Authors affirm; if there were two or three Popes at a time, and if they were rather Apostatical then Apo∣stolical for fifty years together, as their own Baronius confesseth, what be∣comes of the pretended Line of Suc∣cession? If none of these things can in∣fringe it, what can? We may as rati∣onally affirm that a Dog may generate a Man, as that the Man of God may be the Off-spring of the Man of Sin. I doubt not but Christ had his Ministers in the darkest Ages of the Church, but not by virtue of this Succession in debate.

4. Nay, this Principle destroys all Churches in the World. For there's no Church this day can produce such a Testimonial of Succession, as hath met with no Canonical Interruption. They that bid fairest for it, are the Greek Churches,* 1.31 the Latine, and the African Churches; and all of them derive the Succession from the same Source, ma∣king Peter the Head of it. The Greeks

produce a large Catalogue of Patri∣archs proceeding from Peter, until the time of Neophytus, who not many years ago held the See at Constantinople. The Christians of Affrica, especially the Habassines, who are the most considerable among them, derive their Succession from the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he from Mark and Peter. The Western Churches also derive the Succession from the same Spring. Thus we have the most conside∣rable Sects of Christians in the World, deriving their Claim from one and the same Apostle. All would be reputed the Off-spring of the Chief Apostle, and glory in their Relation to him. It seems Paul, the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, who laboured more abundant∣ly then all the rest, either left no Succes∣sour behind him, or no Body knows what is become of him? Sic vos non vobis, &c.

Peter the Apostle of the Circumcisi∣on, must be the Universal Head of all the Gentile-Churches; and Paul, with the rest of the Apostles, must be writ∣ten Childless, or be the Progenitors of such an Off-spring that is long ago ex∣tinct, or so very obscure, that their Names are written in the Dust.

But how comes Peter to Canton his Bishoprick into three Parts, and to leave three Successors behind him? By the same Rule, every Bishop must have more Successors then one, three at least, and each of them as many, and so forward until Bishopricks be crumbled into Parochial Churches; and the Patrimony of Peter, by an Apostolical Gavel kind, be equally divi∣ded between his Parochial Succes∣sors.

But the unhappiness of it is, the three Patriarchal Successors cannot a∣gree about the divided Inheritance. The eldest Brother (for so the Pope of Rome reckons himself) Condemns the two others as spurious, and Claims to himself the Universal Inheritance. His Advocate* 1.32 Bellarmine expresly affirms, Non posse ostendi in Ecclesiâ Graecâ Suc∣cessionem. He adds, We see that the o∣ther Apostolick Sees are decay'd and fail'd; viz. those of Antioch, Alexan∣dria, and Jerusalem, wherein after that those places were taken away from the Romans by the Persians and Saracens (since which time there are nine hundred years past) there hath been no Successi∣on,

and if there were any, the same was very obscure.* 1.33 Stapleton also saith of the Greek Church. That she hath no Legitimate Succession.

The Greek Churches on the other hand condemn the Roman Succession. Primi qui seriò primatum Romanum Pon∣tificis oppugnarunt videntur fuisse Graeci, saith° 1.34 Bellarmine.

Barlaam, the Monk, thus attacks the Roman Succession: What Law,* 1.35 saith he, obligeth us to reckon the Bishop of Rome Peter's only Successor, that must rule all the rest? and why may not the Bishop of Alexandria be accouted Peter's Suc∣cessor, and so challenge the Supremacy; for as Clemens was made Bishop of Rome, so was Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria.

He strikes at the Head of the Suc∣cession, and denies Peter to have been Bishop of Rome† 1.36, as many of our Pro∣testant Writers have done‖ 1.37. If there∣fore a Man would know the true Church by Personal Succession, 'tis dif∣ficult to know what part to take, espe∣cially considering that of all the pre∣tended Successions, the Roman (from which the English Prelacy derives it

self) is most suspicious, as being often interrupted by Simony, Heresie, and Schism. Pope Eugenius the Fourth was deposed by the General Council of Ba∣sil, and pronounced Heretick and Schis∣matick, with all his Adherents; yet he retains the Papal Authority against the Judgment of that Council; Cardinals and Bishops were Instituted by him.

5. By this Principle no Man can know himself to be a Minister of Christ. Can any Man know that all the Predecessors of that Bishop that Ordained him were Canonical Bishops? that none of them came in by Simony, or err'd in the Fundamentals, so as to be guilty of Heresie? that none of them lost their Authority by involving them∣selves in Secular and Publick Admini∣strations* 1.38, or by neglecting to instruct their Flocks† 1.39, or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction‖ 1.40? These things make Canonical Nullities. Can any Man know, who was the Bishop that was the Root of his Succession? A great part of the Christian World is uncertain what Apostles did first Convert their particu∣lar Countries, which were it known,

would not yet resolve the Point. Con∣science will not be satisfied, with say∣ing, Let others disprove my Succession. It must have positive Grounds of Sa∣tisfaction, that I am a true Minister of Christ. So that this Notion serves only to perplex Ministers and People, with insuperable difficulties about their acceptance with God, and to leave Christianity it self upon such precari∣ous Foundations, as will be, in the power of every Critick in Church-History to shake, if not to over∣turn.

How is it possible, That plain il∣literate People should know this Suc∣cession, which is learnt only by read∣ing of the Greek and Latine Fa∣thers, the length and obscurity of which wearieth the wisest Men, and which oftentimes contradict themselves. Ought not the Consciences of the meanest to be satisfied in the Call of their Ministers? Must they act in a Matter of so great importance by an Implicit Faith? What Rule shall they judge by? not by the Line of Succes∣sion; that will but lead them into an

inextricable Labyrinth. Our Saviour hath left us a better Rule, By their Fruits ye shall know them.

6. Let it be further considered, That the Catalogues that are brought by some of the Ancients, of the Suc∣cessors of the Apostles, were made by Conjecture* 1.41. Nor is this Succession so evident and convincing in all places, as it ought to be, to demonstrate the thing intended. A List would be ex∣pected of Apostolical Successors, not only in the Great Patriarchal Chur∣ches, but in all others planted by the Apostles,* 1.42 as Philippi, Corinth, Cae∣sarea, and in all the Seven Churches of Asia, (and not only at Ephesus) which has not been yet produced. Though in the Patriarchal Churches the beginning of the Line is as ob∣scure as the Head of Nilus. At Rome, 'tis not certain whether Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, or Clemens are to be rec∣kon'd first. And as for Antioch, 'tis far from being agreed, whether Peter, Euodius, or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul, or the one and the other

Paul. At Alexandria, where the Suc∣cession seems to run clearest, the O∣riginal of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters, and to no Divine Institution, as we observed al∣ready.

7. If there were any certainty in this Succession, the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters, as much as to Bi∣shops.* 1.43 Ignatius saith concerning them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—That the Presbyters suc∣ceeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles.

Irenaeus affirms the same—Cum au∣tem ad eam iterum Traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successio∣nem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custo∣ditur, provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni; dicent se non solum Pres∣byteris,* 1.44sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, &c. Though the truth is, when the Fathers insist upon the Suc∣cession of Bishops or Presbyters, they are not to be understood of the Suc∣cession of Persons, but principally of the Succession of Doctrine, which the

first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable, as received from the Apostles. Otherwise, the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Do∣ctrine, is no note of a true Church, as among the Arians, where they had a Succession of Bishops, and yet no true Church.* 1.45 Pietatis successio pro∣prie successio aestimanda est, namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quo∣que Throni particeps est; qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur, adver∣sarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet: Atque haec quidem nomen, illa vero rem ipsam & veritatem habet successionis. Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church, the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple.

Object. 3. Ischyras was Deposed be∣cause he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria. Thus Bi∣shop Hall in his Divine Right of E∣piscopacy, p. 91, 92. and Bilson's Per∣petual Government, cap. 13.

Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pre∣tended Bishop, constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais,* 1.46 and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter, as he had been formerly. Ischyras's Ordination was declared void, as being not ac∣knowledged by them that were report∣ed to be the Authors; himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the He∣reticks, and his Ordination was a no∣torious breach of the Canons; it was sine titulo, extra fines, and nulli vici∣norum nota; all which Circumstances make it uncanonical.

Dr. Field saith, * 1.47

That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void, it's to be understood acoording to the ri∣gour of Canons in use in their Age; which appears (saith he) by this, that Ordinations, sine Titulo, were null. Conc. Chalc. Can. 6.

The Reverend Author of the Naked* 1.48Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischy∣ras.

I am sorry, saith he, so good a Man had no better proof for his intended pur∣pose.

It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Ni••e made a Ca∣non, wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess with∣out his consent, their Ordination should be null. You see then the irregular Ordina∣tion of a Bishop, is as null as the irre∣gular Ordination of a Presbyter: there∣fore the irregular Bishop, and the irre∣gular Presbyter, are of the same Order, of the same Authority, neither able to Ordain.

Object. 4. It is objected out of Ierom, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Pres∣byter, exceptâ Ordinatione?

Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Re∣straints, and not of Scriptural: for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it, he confirms it, by asking this Question, What doth a Bi∣shop more then a Presbyter, except Ordi∣nation? plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour

Order, the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same. As if he would say, The Presbyters perform the most trans∣cendent Acts of Religion, they are Am∣bassadors for Christ, to preach the Go∣spel, they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and what doth a Bishop more then these, except Ordi∣nation▪ which being no Sacrament, is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts, and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree. A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Pow∣er.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. Conc. Can. 5. Carth. 2. Can. 2.
• * 1.2

  Novellis & Ecclesi∣asticis regu∣lis sibi pro∣hibita no∣verine—Presbyterorum Consecratio, &c.
• † 1.3

  Vt per hoc & discretio graduum, & dignigatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur. Conc. Hisp. 2. Can. 7.
• ‖ 1.4

  Quamvis ut Episcopi consecrati sunt, &c.—nec Presbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare prae∣ter Civitatis Episcopum. Concil. Antioch. Can. 10. A.D. 3••4.
• * 1.5

  Can. 2.
• * 1.6

  Can. 29. in Conc. Collect. Reg. Par. 1644. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.7

  Can. 3.
• † 1.8

  Cypr. Ep. 68.
• * 1.9

  Can. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.10

  Can. 80 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.11

  Laud a∣gainst Fish∣er, p. 360.
• * 1.12

  Nic Concil. Can. 4 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.13

  Can. 5. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.14

  Can. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.15

  Eccl. Hist. I. 29.
• † 1.16

  Can. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.17

  Can. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.18

  Can. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.19

  Alia insu∣per dolo malo indu∣xit, nam & in Cleri Or∣din••m co∣optatos, Senatorum munere, & Ministerio perversè fungi jassit. Niceph Eccl. Hist. XIII.
• * 1.20

  Nazian. Orat. in Iul. Imp.
• * 1.21

  Can. 10. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.22

  Sad. Oper. p. 594.
• * 1.23

  Sad. de le∣git. vocat. Ministr. p. 545—
• * 1.24

  P. 551, 552
• * 1.25

  Antiq. XV. 3, 6, 7, 8.
• * 1.26

  Fox's Acts and Mon. A.D. 1555.
• * 1.27

  Fulk on Eph. Sect. 4.
• * 1.28

  Perk. Vol. 2 p. 171—
• † 1.29

  Cap. 59. p. 554, 557.
• ‖ 1.30

  Orthod. Faith, p. 120-155.
• * 1.31

  Vide Ca∣thol. Trad. Q 4.
• * 1.32

  De Not. Eccl. cap. 8.
• * 1.33

  Stapl. Doctr. Princip. l.13 c.6.
• ° 1.34

  Praef. ad Lib. de Pontifice.
• * 1.35

  Quaenam Lex solum jubet inter caeteros Ro∣manum E∣piscopum hujus Suc∣cessorem appellari..: De Prin∣cip. Cap. 3. in Bibl. Pa∣tr.
• † 1.36

  Barl. ib.
• ‖ 1.37

  Func. Com. in Chron. ad An. 44.
• * 1.38

  Can. Ap. 80.
• † 1.39

  Can. 57.
• ‖ 1.40

  Can. 36. Const. 1. Can. 3.
• * 1.41

  Euseb. Ec. Hist. l.3.c.4
• * 1.42

  Vide Dr. Still. Iren.
• * 1.43

  Ad Magn. p. 33. Voss. Edit.
• * 1.44

  Advers. haer.l.3.c.2
• * 1.45

  Nazianz. in laud. A∣than.
• * 1.46

  Athanas. Apol. 2.
• * 1.47

  Dr. Field. de Eccles. III.39.
• * 1.48

  Naked Truth, p. 45