A85313:274
Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater…
Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbytery. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbyterie. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.
London: printed for Nathanael Webb, 1660
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.
3. I find that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer, but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book, and truly those are many. Yea, I find the Congregational Divines, in New-England, though they use no forms, [they are able indeed] yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church, 1divers of them at least would not do it; so Master Shepherd, Though all of us could not concur to condemn all set Forms as unlawful, yet for the English Liturgy, &c. And so after, in the same Page, 2But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof? &c. So again, page 38. only there they say, That though the thing it self be lawful, yet, if not duly circumstantiated, it may be evil and scandalous in the use, as Meats, 1 Cor. 8.13. This to me (if we have liberty as in the Question) is the greatest trouble, how to answer the offence it will give to other Christians, in case we cannot satisfy there, being we have no command in the Word to use these Forms; how will you help us here? Will men give the Answer which Bishop Land, when he silenced my Father in law, gave to him? My Father pleaded that Text of Paul, He would not offend his weak Brother, Why then should the Bishop offend him by imposing the Surplice? To that speech of Paul, Bishop Laud answered, Yea, Paul said so when he was alone, but do you think Paul would have said so, if he had been in a Convocation? A rare Answer, worthy of a Bishop.
3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer, but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book, and truly those are many. Yea, I finde the Congregationall Divines, in New-England, though they use no forms, [they are able indeed] yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church, 1divers of them at least would not do it; so Master Shephard, Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all set Forms as unlawfull, yet for the English Liturgy, &c. And so after, in the same Page, 2But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof? &c. So again, page 38. only there they say, That though the thing it self be lawfull, yet, if not duly circumstantiated, it may be evil and scandalous in the use, as Meats,