A41326:282
The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the…
The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the liturgy of the Church of England wherein the reasons by him produced for imposing the said liturgy upon all, are found to be so weak, his defence of things offensive in it so slight, the arguments against the liturgy by himself afforded, are so strong, that some, who upon His Majesties declaration did incline to the liturgy, are now further from it, by reading his wordy discourse about it : also some reasons humbly rendered, why many ministers, as yet cannot conform to that liturgy, but not out of disloyalty, pride, ingratitude, peevishness, nor schismatical petulancy, as the sarcastical pen of this uncharitable doctor hath published ... / by G.F.The liturgical considerator considered, or, A brief view of Dr. Gauden's considerations touching the liturgy of the Church of England wherein the reasons by him produced for imposing the said liturgy upon all, are found to be so weak, his defence of things offensive in it so slight, the arguments against the liturgy by himselfe afforded, are so strong, that some, who upon His Majesties declaration did incline to the liturgy, are now further from it, by reading his wordy discourse about it : also some reasons humbly rendered, why many ministers, as yet cannot conform to that liturgy, but not out of disloyalty, pride, ingratitude, peevishness, nor schismatical petulancy, as the sarcastical pen of this uncharitable doctor hath published ... / by G.F.
London: printed for Ralph Smith, 1661
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.
The things which he touches collaterally, I thought to have spoken to; as the fault he finds with many Presbyterians for not using these words in Ordinations, Receive ye the Holy Ghos••p. 20. But I must now let it alone, only leave this with him if he will please, or any of his persuasion to maintain this Thesis, viz. That Ordination by Presbyters is not Ordination according to the Scripture; if he can carry it, I will be ordained again; or if he ⟨p. 32⟩will prove those words he hath mentioned to be essential, or ought to be used in Ordination.
The things which he touches collaterally, I thought to have spoken to; as the fault he finds with many Presbyterians for not using these words in Ordinations, Receive ye the Holy Ghos••p. 20. But I must now let it alone, onely leave this with him if he will please, or any of his perswasion to maintain this Thesis, viz. That Ordination by Presbyters is not Ordination according to the Scripture; if he can carry it, I will be ordained again; or if he ⟨p. 32⟩will prove those words he hath mentioned to be essential, or ought to be used in Ordination.
The other thing is, pag. 28. his calling for Coercive Authority to be given to the Bishops by the King.
I cannot but smile to see how the stupendous virtue of Episcopacy to heal Schism, for which it was first invented by men, is now proved to be a fallacy. What will not great Titles, Lordships, and Riches do the work, but you must call for a Civil Law of the Nation? You use to laugh at the poor despised Presbyters; Had they a Law which you call for, they could have done something: But will not all your greatness and favour of great men be sufficient? you have shamed Episcopacy extremely; for now we see it is the Law of the Nation, not your Episcopacy, which can heal our Schisms, or do any good in the Church.