A64635:237
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome…
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Beadles upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Bedels upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.
London: printed for John Crook, 1659
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But fourthly, I suppose they mean of later Centuries, when that ⟨p. 221⟩complaint of the Prophet concerning Jerusalem, might be appliable to Rome. How is that faithful City become a harlot? it was full of judgement, righteousness lodged in her; but now murderers, &c. i. e. Since the Bishop of Rome became corrupt in doctrine and worship.
But fourthly, I suppose they mean of later Centuries, when that ⟨p. 221⟩complaint of the Proph•et concerning Ierusalem, might be appliable to Rome. How is that faithful City become a harlot? it was full of judgement, righteousnesse lodgeed in her; but now murderers, &c. i. e. Since the Bishop of Rome became corrupt in doctrine and worship.
For this, first we thus answer. While we were under the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, it doth not appear that he ordinarily usurped, more then a mandatory nomination of the Bishop to be consecrated, which out of a blind fear of his excommunication was assented unto, but the consecration was not by him, but other Bishops here within our selves. And I account the ordination or consecration to be derived from such as gave imposition of hands, not from ⟨p. 222⟩the mandate for them to do it; Henry the eight, and the Kings succeeding, assumed the like power in the nomination of the person (which accordingly might not be gainsaid:) but from thence it cannot be argued, that our ordination or consecration was deduced from them, for the Kings mandate served not to give power to ordain (which those Bishops had before intrinsically annexed to their office) but only was a warrant to apply this power to the person named in that Mandate. Now this being all which was usurped by the Bishop of Rome, in relation to the consecrations of our Bishops in England, when we were under the Tyranny of the Papacy, there is as little force for our deriving our ordination from him also. And if