A85313:66
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.
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. 1de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so.
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 ofthe Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also? Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose? the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. 1de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so.
- 1Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23.
I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episcopacy by the roots: God hath set in his Church, Where shall we find the Bishop in question set? not among the Apostles I hope, not among the Prophets, then it must be among the Teachers, so the Text, thirdly Teachers, but are not Presbyters Teachers? Well met honoured Dr.