A85313:64
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. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, Bellarmine saith but impropriè: Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism. Limit he ⟨p. 9⟩must; then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superior to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, so that the Seventy had not this Power: For if the Seventy had this power also, we are well enough, but this he cannot prove: Besides, to say, though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things, yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction, is but the begging of the question.
3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, Bellarmine saith but impropriè: Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism. Limit he ⟨p. 9⟩must; then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, so that the Seventy had not this Power: For if the Seventy had this power also, we are well enough, but this he cannot prove: Besides, to say, though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things, yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction, is but the begging of the question.
4. Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, but let the Bishop in the question be Ens first, which we cannot find in divine Writ.
5. How proves he this, that Bishops are the Apostles Successors, and Presbyters of the Seventy, and not of the Apostles? This is his proof, it is omnium ferè patrum constans doctrina. Had he said unius Apostoli, it had prevailed much more with me. We are seeking for jus divinum, but he mentions some Fathers, and those not the most ancient neither. But have none of the Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also? Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose? the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg.