A41330:593
The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner,…
The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entitled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templars sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.
London: printed for Tho. Cockerill, 1681
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
CHAP. III.
THE next thing required of us, is our subjection to the Ecclesiastical Government, consisting of six distinct Officers (or more) that exercise Church-power; and holy Writ knows but one of them: In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only such as the King and the Law authorize and appoint; if there should be any other, their power and actions were null, invalid, and they liable to punishment. But in the Church men can be more bold. Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion, if true, must help us, viz. That Christ hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church, but left it to the chief Magistrates, or Church-governors to appoint the form, &c. the design of his Irenicon.
THE next thing required of us, is our subjection to the Ecclesiastical Government, consisting of six distinct Officers (or more) that exercise Church-power; and holy Writ knows but one of them: In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only such as the King and the Law authorize and appoint; if there should be any other, their power and actions were null, invalid, and they liable to punishment. But in the Church men can be more bold. Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion, if true, must help us, viz. That Christ hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church, but left it to the chief Magistrates, or Church-governours to appoint the form, &c. the design of his Irenicon.
In that Jearned Piece there are several things I must yield to, as, That the power of Ordination is proper to the name [Greek or Hebrew], and not [Greek or Hebrew], p. 285. To which let me add what Mr. Samuel Smith, a Minister dead above 20 years since, told us, he with many others, being ⟨p. 69⟩at one time Ordained by the Bishop of Peterborough, the Bishop bad them all take notice, That he did not Ordain as Bishop, but as Presbyter; this Mr. Smith would take his Oath to be true; yet Bishop Gauden told me, The power of Ordination was solely in the Bishop, and though Presbyters did impose hands with the Bishop, it was out of courtesy. Thank you, Sir! I am not to meddle with this now. I presume he would defend this as well as he did the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, in the several sheets that passed betwixt us upon the question; but whence then comes Reordination to the same office in the same Church? a thing unknown to Fathers, Councils, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, but only to this new Edition of Conformists.