A85313:78
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 see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, because he said, 1 Tim. 1.3. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus. [Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopric.] And Titus because he said, Chap. 1.5. For this cause I left thee in Crete. I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms, and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions. Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others [or if not with others] Ministers, and Titus left at Crete, to do the same, but it must follow necessarily, Ergo, they were constituted fixed Bishops of those places.
I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, because he said, 1 Tim. 1.3. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus. [Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopprick.] And Titus because he said, Chap. 1.5. For this cause I left thee in Crete. I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms, and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions. Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others [or if not with others] Ministers, and Titus left at Crete, to do the same, but it must follow necessarily, Ergo, they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places.
But the Fathers say they were Bishops; that's a proof, not sufficient to make jus divinum. The Papists and Dr. Hammond say, they were Archbishops: both alike for truth.
Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so? It was the saying of a great Bishop, that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Tiles. Sure I am that Paul gives him another title, of which presently.