A85313:73
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.
2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti, he saith indeed afterward, p. 195. Certum est Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis, &c. yet adds in the conclusion, quasi affixos. Well then certum est, but how I pray, certitudine fidei divinae? else 'tis not certain to us in this controversy, I regard not mens words without Scripture: but what mean these words quasi affixos, this quasi spoils the certainty, for if but quasi affixi, they were but quasi Episcopi, as I could soon prove from the Scriptures, and the Canons of Councils.
2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti, he saith indeed afterward, p. 195. Certum est Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis, &c. yet adds in the conclusion, quasi affixos. Well then certum est, but how I pray, certitudine fidei divinae? else 'tis not certain to us in this controversie, I regard not mens words without Scripture: but what mean these words quasi affixos, this quasi spoils the certainty, for if but quasi affixi, they were but quasi Episcopi, as I could soon prove from the Scriptures, and the Canons of Councils.
I wonder the Dr. should say, that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and that propriè dictus. I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spake next to Peter, because James was Bishop of Jerusalem, where the Council was held: But,
1. He was an Apostle, one of the Pillars, Gal. 2.9. whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod, but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange: Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome, because he was an Apostle, and so not fixed.