A85313:298
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.
I pray prove unto us, That the washing of pots, cups, &c. in Mark 7.8. were forbidden by the Word: Had not the Pharisees the same Answer to give, We are not Superstitious in these, for they are not opposite to the Word: but the Lord charges them with vain worshipping, vers. 7. So say you, The Surplice and Ceremonies are not ⟨p. 43⟩opposite to the Word: But they put Religion in such washings. They made no more of them, than ours have done of their Ceremonies. Also, I pray show us where the Word had commanded, that they must touch, taste, and handle those meats or things which their Men-Teachers taught them they must not touch, not taste, nor handle, Col. 2.21. if they meant of not eating Hogs, Conies, Hares flesh, as the Rhemists interpret it, [I know various Interpretations, but pass them by] might not they say, when Paul charged them with will-worship, and Superstition, Why Paul these things are not opposite to the Word, May we not forbear to eat these, as well as eat them? this who could deny; but such abstinence the Apostle blames, and other things there in the general mentioned; For men to put any Religion, Holiness, in what God hath not, and think to add to him, or mend his Rules or worship, as our men do in Ceremonies, the jealous God will not be pleased.
I pray prove unto us, That the washing of pots, cups, &c. in Mark 7.8. were forbiden by the Word: Had not the Pharisees the same Answer to give, We are not Superstitious in these, for they are not opposite to the Word: but the Lord charges them with vain worshipping, vers. 7. So say you, The Surplice and Ceremonies are not ⟨p. 43⟩opposite to the Word: But they put Religion in such washings. They made no more of them, than ours have done of their Ceremonies. Also, I pray shew us where the Word had commanded, that they must touch, taste, and handle those mears or things which their Men-Teachers taught them they must not touch, not taste, nor handle, Col. 2.21. if they meant of not eating Hoggs, Conies, Hares flesh, as the Rhemists interpret it, [I know various Interpretations, but passe them by] might not they say, when Paul charged them with will-worship, and Superstition, Why Paul these things are not opposite to the Word, May we not forbear to eat these, as well as eat them? this who could deny; but such abstinence the Apostle blames, and other things there in the general mentioned; For men to put any Religion, Holinesse, in what God hath not, and think to add to him, or mend his Rules or worship, as our men do in Ceremonies, the jealous God will not be pleased.