,3«»!^'
:y«« .i; V •••«¥« tfl
'"'4. .■k.'
p-M^-m
Stom t^e feifirari? of
QprofeBBor ^amuef (gtiffer
in (JHemot)? of
3ubge ^amuef (ttliffer QStecftinribge
^vesente^ 6l?
^amuef (giiffer QSrecfttnrtbge feong
to f 5e feifimri? of
(ptinceton C^eofogicaf ^eminarg
sec
A2y,
/AKsShlfl
|
■^^^^ |
- THE /^^xi^9-3t^> |
|
VALIDITY |
|
|
O F T H E |
Diflenting Miniftry :
O R, T H E
Ordaining Power o/' Presbyters
Evinced from the
New Teftament and Church Hiftory
In Four PARTS.
Publifh'd by Cha. Owen.
Eftfcopi noverint fe magis confuetudine quam diffofitionis Domimc£ veritate^ Presb)teris ejfe majores. Hieron. in Epift. ad Tit.
LONDON:
Printed for E m a n. Matthews at the Bil^h
in Fater-mfier-Row. 1716.
•>» V
T O T H E
READER.
F Men read Books with a Mifjd fairly diffofedfor the Reception of Truth^ I doubt noty hut the enfuing ColleBi'^ on would go a great waj towards the decifton of this Controverfy ; hut when Men are zealoujly devoted to Party-OpinionSj and confult their Prejudices only in the Determination of Differences j no wonder the hrightefi Truths fafs for Errors.
The Reafons urged here in favour of Ordination By Presbyters^ at leajly I think fome of V/», are clo» thed with that Evidence^ that they can fcarce fail of gaining the Jjfent of Intelligent and Impartial Readers.
They are not verifimilar Profofuions^ but Argu^ ments thav carry with Vw an indifputahle Authority with Men who are disburdened of Bigotry and ill Na* ture.
As an Introiuclion to what follows I /ball obferve four Things,
A a I. That
To the READER.
T. That the New Teftament makes no real difference between Bifhops and Presbyters.
2. That the Primitive Church was goverp'd by Presbyterial Bifliops.
3. Glance at the Original of Superiour Bi* fliops, and the fatal Effeds of that Superiority.
4. Shew in what Countries Ordination is per- formed by Presbyters, and where by Diocefan Bilbops,
h ^s to the New Tejlament^ I frefume it is no more a doubt whether Bifhops and Presbyters arc the fame or no ; fn^ce they are ahvajs ujed Synoni- moufl) there. And. no Wonder^ ' fmce there is no £- ^ le^ion^ Ordinxtion^ Churatier^ or any thing elfe ^ mentioned there to difiinguijh them ; hut the Office
* (jisrvell as the ISlame) of both are made toconfiji of
* doing the fame Things without dtftin^fion.
And can r^e fupfofe the Apoflles tvou^d conflitute txvodiflinB Offices of Prelacy and Presbytery, and yet no where di^ingutjh ^em^ hut on the contrary every rvhere reprefent "^em the fame, R. C. C.
In Scripture^ there are no Rules or Directions gi- ven to Bifjops as d'tJlinB from^ or Juperior to Pref hyters^ or to Presbyters as inferior tOy or diflinci from Bifhops.
I could never yet fee tvhere the New Teflament di- vides flated and flanding Church Offictrs into three diflinti Orders^ viz. Bifhops, Priefts, and Dea- cons. If there be any fuch Text^ let it be produc'^d without offering violence to its genuine Signification.
^Tis certain^ the Scripture no where mentions Presbyters as an Order of l^Ien fubordinate and inferi- or to Bifhops. Let pur Adverfaries advance one Scripture Tefimony for Subje^Presbyters.y or fhew ' '^ where
To the READER.
where the Word Bifhop {with its Conjugates, which is ufed fix or [even times in the New Tejlament) e* ver (Igmfies Diocefan.
Tofaj presbyters were fubjeff to the Apoftles will mtfolve the Difficulty, till it be proved that Bifiops are more their rightful Succejfors than the former.
Nor doth the Scripture any where fpeak of the Or- dination of Bifhops as difiin^i from Presbyters ; but it exprefly mentions the Ordination of Timothy as perform d by the Presbyters, I Tim, 4. 14.
II. The Primitive Church was govcrnM by a Council of Presbyterial Bifhops. None of the Fa^ thers fpeak of Diocefan Bifhops, nor indeed of any Bifhops asfuperiorto Presbyters by Divine Right.
For about a hundred Tears after Chrifl, we find nothing of Subjecl-Presbyters. That there was a Pa- rochial Bifhop we readily granty and plead for the Re* flit ut ion of his Authority,
This will appear when we confider, that for about ^00 Tears after Chrijl, the Bifhops Church was no larger than a fingle Congregation \ for all the Mem* hers of it met together in the fame Place for puhlick Worhip, and received the Sacrament at the Hand of the Btfhop himfef'^ which could not pof/ibly be done tf the BiQiop's Charge then had been as large a Mo- dern Diocefs. This is acknowledged even by Ignati- us the pretended AthiS of Diocefan Epifcopaay.
In the fir ft Century the Bifhop was only ihrfirft Presbyter, or the Moderator of the Presbytery, having only a Primacy of Order, for he could do nothing without ''em, as appears from variety of In- fiances 5 therefore to be the Chair-man^ Bifhop or Prepdent of an Ecclefiaftical Jffembfyp is the fame in the Primitive Dialed.
m. la
To the READER.
III. In after Ages Chriftianity increafing. Churches are planted in diftant Places ; which Churches being newly gathered, thefe Parochial Bifhops kept under 'em as fo many Chappels of Eafe, but this Subordination of leffer to greater Churches, was by a mutual Agreement among themfelves, and not of Divine or Apoftolick In- ftitution.
The Jfoftles ufuxllj Preached in Cities^ {there he^ ing the greateji Corfcourfe of Feofle) from whence the Do5irine of ChrifliAnity ffread it f elf by degrees into the Country about where they fettled Minifters.
Thefe Country Clergy and Convertij did at firfl joyn themfelves in Communion with the next City Churchy till in frocefsof Time they refolved themfelves into lejfer Communities^ which were governed by their own Miniflers, under the Super intendency of the Ec^ clefjaflicai Senate in the Cit)^ the Preftdent of which was the chief Presbyter^ called Bifhops part of whofe Office was to over fee the adjacent Churches ; and this ts the Original of that the Latins call Diocefs, and ^k Greeks, Parifh.
So that the Superiority ofBifljops at firfl was found-* ed upon Ee clef aft ical Cuftom and not upon Divine Right.
Thus Epifcopacy advanced by degrees till it commen^ ced Prelacy y and at laft fwelled beyond the Bounds of the Ancient Parochial Charge.
At frft all Minifters were equal^ (excepting the Infpired whofe Office as fuch was temporary) and when under the fpecious Pretence of Unity a Super iori" ty was eftabltfhed in one of the Presbyters above an^ other ^ the encroaching Humour was carried on fur^ ther^ and by degrees Equality among Bifhops was
de^
To the READER.
iieftroyed by Archbifhops over thmy a^d fo o»^ till at Ufi it ended in one Jingle Supremacy over the Churchy which we call Papacy.
Now the fir (i Step to the Papal Chair j was this Inequality among Minifiers. There was granted to one Minifter^ firfi a Prefidency over others^ then a, fole Power of Ordination^ and at loft a fole Pomt. of Jurifdi^ion over the reft.
And that^ at fir ft ^ over all in a City or Diocefsj then over all in a Province^ then over all in di* vers Provinces^ and at laft over all the Chri" ftian World.
The particular Steps whereby the Pope afcended the Throne were thefe :
1. They fet up Bifliops over Presbyters.
2. Archbifhops over Bifhops.
3. Primates or Metropolitans over Arch- bifhops.
4. Exarchs over MetropoHtans. Fid, Coll. Di£f. in Verb. Patriarch.
5. Patriarchs over Exarchs.
6. And Lafilyy the Pope over all.
Thus the Romifh Hierarchial Empire was founds ed upon the Invention of Prefidency among Mini* fiers ; and is not this the Source of all papal Vfur- pations ? Was not this Superiority among her Eccle* fiafticks the firfl Stone in Babylon the Great ? And fV it not by Virtue of this that the Scarlet Whore is become fo powerful among the Nations f If it he not foy look upon this as not i^ritten.
Prelacy was at firfi: looked upon as an innocent Creature^ and introduc'*d as a prudential Expedient againft Schifm; but by giving way 10 an Exorbi- tant Prelate to prevent Diviftons in a particular . ti. : Churchy
To the READER.
Chnrch^ a Way tvas ^ndde for An Univeffal Pope, to prevent Divifions {as is pretended) in the Vniver- fal Church.
IV. To what 1 have faid^ Fll only fubjoin a Ihort Account of thofe Countries where Ordi- nations are performed by Presbyters, and where by Diocefan Bilhops.
Ordination perform d by Presbyters*
In the KJngdom of Sweedland,
—Denmark, and Norway,
— of Pruflia and Brandenburg,
In Holland, Zeland, &c, and fome Part of Brabant and Flanders.
^—Geneva,
T/^^/e^z/rSwifsProteftant Can- tons, being three times as big as the Poptfb ones.
The Country of the Grlfons.
Vallies of Piedmont.
The Reformed Churches in
— Poland, --y
—Hungary, >Pigct 8c haecj
— Tranfylvania,S
In France before the late Perfe^* cutions.
In Germany, as
— Brunfwick and Lunenburg,
—Saxony,
— Wirtenburg,
— Mecklenberg,
Dant*
To the READER,
Dantzick a;$d fome othet
Hans Towns, Ponneren. Heffc, Leipfick, Anhault, Palatine on the Rhine, Silefia,
Bohemian ^^ Pr^^W?4;.f, Moravia,i ^
Scotland, New England, In England and Ireland hy Pmejiant Dijfenters.
Ordination perform d ly Diocefan Bilhops,
I, In the Church of Rome and its Dependants, as
— Italy, and all its Member Sy
—France Popifh,
—Spain and Spanifh America,
—Portugal.
Fopfb Churches in Poland,
Hungary,
Tranfylvania,
Switzerland, Popilh Churches in Germany,^x —Bavaria, — Cologn, — Mentz, &c.
II. In the Church of England and Ireland.
TheAw^Xo ^^^QO^^XPlantations.
a
7he
To the READER.
The African Churches alfo (jiot excepting the Greek Church) I take to h on our fide^ till our Jd-^ verfaries prove their Bifhops to ^^ Jure Divino, Superior ta Presbyters \ if this Superiority be £- J}abl/fhed in thofe Churches, how come the Popifh Millionaries to re-hptize the Ethiopian Chri* ftians? Ludolph. Hill:, rpf, Ethiopia, p. J4T, and ^42. "c. •
I know, it mil he urged here^ that there are Bi- (liops among feveral of the Reformed Churches abroad ; 1 own there are fo tn Name, hut that they are in reality of the fame Kjnd with the Englifh or Italick Bi[hops, I utterly deny \ or, that they are invefied with any Power over Preshyt'er^Jave that of Moderatorjhip, which indeed is ^ kind of Priority, hut then that Priority is the refult of Humane Appoint^- ment and not of Divine, - •
Tho' the Protejiant Churches differ from one ano-^ ther in fome particulars of Government^ yet all of
^em (excepting the modern C h of E.T.^,.,,.,) agree
in the Identity and Equality of Bifhops and Presby? ters. This is further made out in the enfuing Trea-' tife^ PartL Cap. 4,
When the Ballance of the above flat ed Account is duly confider'^d, the begotted Zs^lots of the Ch— h ^ill have little reafon to condemn our Ordina- tion by Presbyters, which agrees with that of all o-> th§r Reformed Churches, and perhaps lefs reafon to triumph in her own y wherein fhe has no Affoctate but the Ch:"^k of K,
It's
To the READER.
7/V amazwg to think how any Protefiants (bou^i dllow the Ordinations of an Idolatrous Antichrifiian Coni/enticle to be valid^ and at the fame time reje^ the Ordination of all Proteflant Churches (their owH excepted^ that are confejfedly true Members of the Holy Catholick Church,
If an Idolatrous Popijb Prieji turns totheCh—ch
of E d he is prefer d without any Reordination^
hut no Foreign Protejlant Minifter is capable of Pre^
ferment in the E fll Q.*.,,.h^ without fubmitting
to Reordination.
A hard Cafe I that the Ordination of a Popifh Bifhop^an Idolater ^jhould qualify him to ferve in a Pro^ teftant Church^when that of the Reformed Churches is counted invalid and nullj and muft be renouncd before any of their Minifter s can be prefer d in the EpifcO" pal Eftablijhment.
Say not I bear hard upon the Papal Diocefans, in calling V/w Idolatrous, when the Church of Eng- land in her Homilies (which are fubfcribed by all her Clergy as containing wholefome Do^rine) teaches that^
^ The Church ofKomt is an Idolatrous Churchy ^ not only an Harlot ^ as the Scripture calls hery
* hut alfo a filthy^ foul^ old, wither d Harlot^ and
* the Mother of Whoredoms. Homily againll the
* Peril of Idolatry Ill^Part. p. 154 Lond. Fol. ^ Edit. 1 67 J.
How comes the Ordination of this old wither^ Harlot to he true^ and that of Foreign Reformed Churches to be falfe f Shall the Children of the Re- formation
To the Deader.
formaian be treated as ffumus, while the Sohs of that pithy Harlot are entertainM as Legitimate and Genuine? Tell it not in Gath, Publilh it not in the Streets of Jskekf/. '
London, Augoft 14, t7if.
Cha. Owen.
QC)00QQ3Q0gOQ0Q00QQ3QCQQQ 302
THE
VALIDITY
O F
ORDINATION
Meer PRESBYTERS,
In Ten ARGUMENTS.
BEING TH^'^
Ahridgment of Mr. ]. Owen V Vlea.
WITH
Occafional and Proper Supplements.
AS ALSO
A Defence of it againft the late Reftor of Bury^
PART L
S Chap*
C H A F. L
Freshyters in Scripture are the fafne with Bijhops id Name^ Office and Qualifications^ therefore have Power to Ordain : But two Stated and Standing Church^Officers in the New Teftamcnt, vizi Bifloofs {or Vreshytersy and Deacons. No Text that gives the Power of JuriJdiUion to the Bi" /hops as dijiincf from the Presbyter. Sytiack Tr an flat ion makes Bifhop and Presbyter the fame^ The Presbyter^ if any^ more honourable than the Bifljop. Timothy and Titus no Diocefan Bifljops^ Poftfcrjpt to Paul'i Epiftles fpurious. Govern^ fnent of the Ephefian Church given to Presbyters ^ Primitive Dioceffes^ like our Modern Parifljes, The Original and Office of Evangelijls. The Apo^ calyptick Angel no Prelatick Bijhop.
H E State of the Queftlon in fhort Is this, IVfjether Ordination by meer Pres^ bjters without Diocefan Bifhops be valid? Mr. Owen maintains and proves the Affirmative by the fubieqijent Argii- mentSi which are enforced by Additi- onal Remarks.
Arguinent 1. Presbyters have an inherent Power to Ordaiuy becauje they are Scripture Bijhops, For^
AccQRib?^'
4 An Abridgment of
I. According to the New Teftament, Bifliops and Presbyters are the fame in Name and Office. Thus the Presbyters of Ephejus are not only calfd Bi/hops, but are alfo invefted with the fole Epifcopal Over- fight of that Church, as will appear to any unprejudi- ced Perfon by comparing the following Texts."
Acts 20. 1 7. He (Paul) fent to Ephefus and called the Presbyters of the Churchy yr^ta-^yrtsti*
Verfe 18. And when they were come to him, he f aid,
Verfe zS. "take heed to your felves, and to all the Flock, ovir v:hich the Holy Ghofl has made you BiJJjops {iTria-MXiiO to feed the Church, i. e. to rule and govern the Church.
Tuh Greek Word (Trdif^Uw) to Feed, fignifies alfo to Rule, and is taken in that Senfe, Alatt, 2. 6. A Cover nouY that fh all rule my People Ifrael, tov<^»«.
So Pfal. 2. p. Thoufialt (break Trcifi^mi) rule them mth a Rod of Iron.
Thus the Church of England tq^lAs the Word in her Form o£ ordaining Presbyters : T*ake heed to all the Flock among whom the Holy Ghoft has made you Over- feers, to rule the Congregation of God. Form of Ordain- ing Priefts Epifcopal.
Those Places clearly evince an Identity or Same- nefs of Offices as well as Names. When Paul bids the Ephejian Presbyters rule their Flock, and perform the Ojfice of a Bifliop to them, he doth not (peak of the Name but of the Office. So i Pet. 5. i, 2. 77:?^ Presbyters which are among you I exhort : Feed (or rule) the Flock of God a cling the Bijhops therein. u^iir^v\i^v<i
It appears hence, that the Government of the Ephefian Church was committed to the Presbyters, and not to any fingle Perfon -, they are expreily in- vefted with the fupreme Power by the Holy Ghoft; and the Rector's Friends muft by another T'entamen Novum prove they were ever deprived of it, or that any Bifhops was placed above them, when the Apo- file departed thence, and was to fee their Faces no
more.
Mr. J. Owen's Tka. 5
more, which has not yet been done. JSTor can they ever provx that Paul returned to Ephefus aj^ain ; and fliOLild that be done, they can't prove the Holy Ghoft alter'd his Mind, and turn'-d Presbytery into Pre/acyy as the Redor fays he did, pag, ip, 20, 21. •
Jnfu). I. What! Did the i!:irpired Apoftle alter his Mind ? Is the divine Spirit inconfiftent xN^ith himfeif ? That this was the laft Eftablifhment Patd intended to make in that Church, is evident; for he politively tells them, I know that ye JhalJ fee my Face no ?nore, A6is 20. 25. The Church of E/Tg/^Wunderftands the Apo- ftle in this Senfe ,• therefore ihe reads the Words thus, / am Jure that Joeuceforth ye Jhali fee fny Face no more. Form of Ordaining Priefls. ;
2. Bishops and Presbyters hmje one and the fame Qtia" lifications. When the Apoftle fpeaks of the Accom- plifhments and necefiary Endowments of Church Of- ficers, he only mentions Bijhops and Deacons as the Subjed of them ; fays nothing of Presbyters, becaufe they were the fame with Bifbops, i T/w. 3.
The Learned G/otim, called by fome the Phoenix of his Age, faith {in locum) the Presbyters of the Church are here called Biftiops or Infpedors,- but that afterwards that Name was by way of Eminence (he doth not fay Jure divino) given to one of them who was the Prefident, or Chair-man.
So I 'Tit, 5. 4, 5, 6y 7. For this Caufe J left thee in Crete, that thou fhouldfi ordain Presbyters in every City ; if any (i. e. that is to be ordained a Presbyter) be llamelefs, for a Bifiop mufl be blamekfs. What Force would there be m thofe Words, Ordain Presbytersy for a Bijhop mufl be blamelef, if Bifhop and Presbyter were not the fame ? In that Cafe, the Reafon added, Verfe 7. would not be cogent; for he orders him to ordain Presbyters, and then dcfcribes a Biftop ; fo that if the Apoftle means any thing in this Place, he intends one and the fame Perfon and Office, when he mentions Billiop, Presbyter, or Elder.
B 5 3- ^^'^
$ An Ahrid^^n^nt of
^. 7%e Scripttires own hit tzvo ordindryy flandwg Church officers,: 'viz. Bi/hops and- Deacons. Read i T/w. 3, Chap.' throughout. *Sb PhiL i. i. ¥2lu\ to all the Saints at Philippi, with the Bifiof-s and Deacons. Of thef^ Bifhops, there were more than one in every Church ; fo there were in .tlie sPZ/z/z/^/c^ Churich, Phil. i. i. with the Bifiops (in\'thc Church) at Philippi. So there were feveral Bifhops in the Ephefmn Congrega- tion, ABs 20. 17, 28. - Qver which (i. e. Church of Ephefm) the 'Holy Ghoft hath 7nade you Bifiops. So the Original. .\\- Ja
-So A&s 14. 25. T'hey Wdaiked Presbyters (or Bifhops) in every Churi:h. Dodov Ha?nmond (whom. King Charles II. deiigned to make Bifhop of Worcefter) thinks thcfe Bifhops were only the fingle Paflors of iingle Congregations,; with their Deacons, without any PresbytersHincier^them. Tho* this Gentleman was a high Dioceian, yet fcrupled not to aflirm, That in the New T*€fiament there were only two Kinds of Churc-h-Oificers, Bifhops and Deacons.
Even Bifhop 'Taylor 'owns ^ that only Bifhops and Deacons a-re of divine fnflitution. Epifcopacy averted,
■ Kay more,.' the' leai-ned Dodwel prov^es, that a Di- pcefan- Bi^op is npt^to be -found in all the New 7e- jlamelih-'- Paran. ad ExterosI -i^'i-^-' ■
Be^o^e I difinifs this He^d, let me add,
(1.) Of the Bifhops mentioned in Scripture, there were feveral of them in one Church, but now one Bifli^p extends his Dominion oyer many Churches.
(2.) The Scripture no where mentions the Quali- fications of Bifhops as diftind from Presbyters ; and I challenge our Adverfaries to produce one Scripture fpr Epifcopal Ordination as diflipd from that of presbyters.
(s) I would fainyfee one Text that divides the Miniflerial Power^atn^rder, that gives only the Power of DoElrine to Presbyters, and the Power of Jurifdi- Bicn and Order to Bifhops j let the Advocates for
Mr. J. Ovven'i Tka. 7
the Caufe fpeak, and fliew me (if they can) a Scrip- ture that excludes Presbyters from the Power of Or- daining, Confirming, Confecrating, &c, which they fay, are the proper Work of a Bifhop as Superior to a Presbyter.
(4.) How comes it to pafs, when the Apoflle reckons up the feveral Sorts of Minifters appointed to be in the Church, that he makes no mention of Superior Bifhops ? Our Learned Writers againll: Po- pery think it a good Argument to difprove the Popes Headftip, that he is not mentioned among the Lift of Church-OiEcers reckoned up in the New I'efta^ fnent; no more is a Bifhop as fuperior to Presbyter, as much as named in thofe Places, i Cor. 12. 28. Ep/j. 4. II. nor any where elfe in the Bible.
4. It is no contemptible Argument) that the Syriack T^Yunflation ufes not two Words, one for Bifiopy and ana- thi^T for Presbyter^ but has only Kajhijhay which iigni- fies Presbyters: This fliews, that the Syriack Tranila- tors took Bifhop and Presbyter to be Church-Officers of the fame Species, and therefore exprefl them by one Word. The Syriack reads, i I'im, 3. i. He that de fires the Office of a Presbyter. So Phil. i. i. Presbyters and Deacons. This is a ftrong Proof, that the Di- flindion of Bifhop and Presbyter was not known when that Tranflation was made, for it ufes not as much as different Names for them.
To this Mr. Gips fays,
Obj. I. " That the Word u^i<rQu%(^ Presbyter being " ufed in the Greek Teftament above fixty times; " 'tis by. the Syriack Tranflators always rendered by " Kajhip^a without any Exception, and with Reafon, " being defcended from Kejhafi Smiiity and doth mofl " properly fignify Presbyter or Elder. But,
2. " '£Tl<ry-o5r(^ is tendered by other Words than " by KajhijJmy for Kajhijha is only thrice ufed to ex- '* prefs Bifhop by, as 7it. i. 7. i I'im. 5. 2. PInl. i. i. ^' In all which Places, the Latin of the Syriack has
B 4 \' Preibyter
8 An Alridgment of
" P.resbytsY, not Epifcoppti. And from hence it may " indeed, with Tome Reafonj be argued, th?.t Bifnop " in all tlrefe Places denotes no more than Presbyter " or Elder, at leaft in the Opinion of the Syriack *^ Tranflators. Again, 'et/V^ot®- and its Conjugates *' are in the Syriack Verfion rendered by Words of "- very different Signification from it; as A^s i. 20. " ABs 20. 28. I Pet. 2.12. Luke 19.^^. Part 2d. P. 31.
Then a little lower, the Redor thinks it pro- bable, *' That the Syriack Tranflators did not take *' 'EttItkct^ and u^i(r/BvTio(^ in the Original, to be one " and the fame Order of Church-Officers through- f' out the New Teftament ; for tho' 'tis not unlikely !^f they believed Bifliops to be the fame with Presby- " ters, in Phil i. i. in i 7/w. 3. i, 2. and in 7/?. i. 5' 7. becaufe they keep clofe to the Word KafiiJJm ; '^' yet when they expound 'EjrI(r«ojr3- and its Conju- '^^ gates in other Places by different Words, 'tis alto- ^* gether as likely that they beh'eved the Bilhop to be ?' a Church-Officer of a different Kind.
AnJ. Need I return an Anfwer to the Redor here, lince he takes fo much Pains to confirm a great Part of Mr. Owens Argument from the Syriack J/erfion I More particularly,
I- It's here acknowledged by him, that the New J*efta?nent Bifhop is a Presbyter.
2. He thinks it probable, but is not pofitive, that the Syriack Tranflators did not take 'E^riVxe^r^ and ppiV/3«T£^©- in the Original to be the fame Order of Church-Officers, and it's probable the Redor may be ip an Error, fince he afligns no manner of Reafon for what he fays.
g. As to the Places where it is differently rende- red, it is fufficient to fay, that it is enough that in the above-quoted Texts that treat of Church-Officers they ufe the fame Word, and retain the Greek Word in ABs iQ. 28. which is a further Evidence of their Judgment, Vetfe 17. As to i Pet, 2. 12. and Luke i^. •• .1. ,'- 44,
Mr. J. Owen'j- Tlea. g
44. they fpeak not of Gofpel-Minifters, and there- fore not pertinently alledg'd.
In fine, if there be any di^erence between Bifhop and Presbyter, the preheminence is given in Scrip- ture to Presbyters. The Bifhops fay, their Office as diftinft from Presbyters, is to Rule, and the Office of a Presbyter is to Adminifter the Sacraments, Preach, Labour in the Word and Doftrine : But to admini- fter the Sacraments, and be AmbafTadors for Chrift by preaching the Gofpel, is a more honourable Work than ruling and governing ; fo Paul fays, they (the Presbyters) that labour in the Word and DoSiriney de- ferve more Honour than they (the Bifhops) who rule wel/, I Tim. 5. 17.
The Apoftles ftile themfelves Presbyters, but ne- ver Bifhops ,* thus St. Peter calls himfelf a Presbyter, I Pet, 5. I. *The Presbyters which are among you I exhort y who a?n alfo a Fellow-Presbytery CvfAfT^s(rfiuTt^(^. So St. John begins his id and 3d Epiftles. 'fhe Presbyter unto th§ EleEi Ladyy 2d Epiftle. 'the Presbyter (n^iV/SyTSf®-) unto the well-beloved Gaiusy 3d Epiftle.
ObjeSiion. Timothy and Titus were Bijhops fuferior to Presbyters.
Anfw. I. The Papifts ufe this Objedion againft the Proteftants ; fo that Englijh Epifcopacy and Pofijb Prelacy are defended by the fame Arguments.
2. limothy and I'itus were Evangelifts, and not on.* \y fuperior to Presbyters^ but to Diocefan Bifhops. IJt infra.
3. They are no where called Bifhops; produce one Scripture that calls them fo- You'll fay they are fo called in the Poftfcripts to the Epiftles directed to them.
But, I. Thofe Poftfcripts are no Part of Canoni- cal Scripture, nor were they tackt to the Epiftles for feveral hundred Years after Chrift ; j'heodoret being the firft who mentions them, as part of his own Commentary, and yet even he has not the Word
Bifliop
I o An j^hridgment of
Biflbop in them, nor any body elfe, till Oecumenius, who wrote above a thoufand Years after Chrift.
2. The PoIHcripts to the Syriack make no men- tion of their being Bifh ops of thofe Places.
5. The very Poftfcripts themfelves prove themfelves to be written long after the Epiftle : For in one of them Pkrygia is called Pacatianuy which was not the Name of it till above 300 Years after Chrift, when it was conquered by one Pacatianm a Roman General^ and after him called Pacatiana.
Nor can it be gathered from the Epiftles them- felves, that T'imothy and \titus were Bifhops : For when the fecond Epiftle was written to Timothy, he was an Evaiigdijl and no Bifhop ,• fo 2 "Tim. 4. 5. Do the Work of an Emngelift, which was Part of the Apofto- lical Work. An Evangelift was an extraordinary Iti- nerant Officer, and is exprefly diftmguiih'd from Pajhrs and Teachersy who were to be ftanding Guides and Governours of the Church, Eph. 4. 11. And he gave fome Apofilesy and fome Prophet s, and fome Evange- liftsy and fofne Paftors and 7'eachers.
4. There were feveral Presbyter Bi/Iiops at Ephe- fm, when "fimothy is fuppofed to be made Bifhop of it. What became of them ? Were they unbifhop'd and degraded upon his Preferment >
5. How comes Patil, in his Epiftle to the Epheji^ avjy (writ long after the fiift Epiftle to 'timothy) not to mention timothy their pretended Bifliop .> A cer- tain lign he was no Bifhop nor Reftdent there then. We find timothy long after at Romcy from whence the Apoftle intended to take him along with him to vifit the Churches o^ Jud^a, Heb. 13. 23, &c.
6. If timothy was not Bifliop of Ephefm when the firft Epiftle was writ to him, he was none at all ,• for that Epiftle is made the Foundation of his Epifcopal Po A'tr.
He was no Bifhop of Ephefm when Paid took his rinai Leave of the Presbyters there, Acts 20. 17, 28.
Paul
Mr. J. Owen\ TUa. 1 1
Paul upcn his Jaft Departure from thence commits the Overflght of the E^hefi^n Church to the Presbyter r'lan EiJI^ops^ or Epifcopal Presbyters of it, as the proper and fole Governoiirs thereof, without the Icaft men- tion of T'imothy, tho* he was then prefent, ABs 20. 4, 5? <^3 7) 133 M- ^he whole Epifcopal Power is given to the Presbyters before 'timothy ^ their fuppofed ^^'' . , ^ (hop's Face. .>y V.'.^>^»^ /»/ ^^.dife^li«r««^*-v9>^ tu^^i^
But, and if 'timothy was not then prcfent, how '^ comes Z'^/;/ to be fo regardlefs of that Church, {-when he knew he jhould jee their Faces no more) as not to name timothy his Succeflbr ? He told the Ephejian Clergy at Miletus, That he had not fpared to declare to them the whole Council of God. How can this be done when he negleds to inform them about his or- dinary Succeffor ? If Miniftry and Churches depend upon this Succeilion, it was no fmall Part of the Council of God to be declared unto them. He tells them, they Jhould fee his Face no more ; whether he did, or did not, is not material to the Point ; it*s certain he thought he fhould not: How comes he then to leave them without an Epifcopal Shepherd to defend them againfl thofe Wolves that fhould enter after his Departure ? AEts 20. zp. The Reafon is obvious, he thought the Presbyters of Ephefus fit for this Under- taking without a fuperior Bifhop, Verfe 28.
That this Epiftle was written before his Impri- fonment at Rome^ when he went to Macedoniay is ac- knowledged by Bifhop Hally a zealous Defender of the?/// Divinum of Epifcopacy, AEis 20. i, 2, 3; J Tim. 3. 3. Find. pag. pj. Of this Opinion is Atha-^ nafiusy Iheodorety Baronius, Ludovicus Capellusy Grotius, Hammond, Lightfooty Gary, &c.
7. If timothy was Bifhop of Ephtfusy when the firfl Epiflle was written to him, how comes he to be ab- fent from EphefuSy when Patil writ the fecond Epiftle to him ? Was honefl timothy a Non-refident .^ Paul fends tychicjfs with an Epiftle to the Church of Ephc^
fliSs
1 7 An Ahndgment; of
fusy and recommends him to them as a faithful Mini- fler in the Lord, but not a word of, or to 'Timothy^ their fuppofed Diocefauy Eph. 6. 21^22.
But admit, j'mothy was then at Ephefus ; how
comes the Apoftle to call him away from his Epif-
copal Care and Charge? Saying, 1 lim, 4. p, 10, 11.
. Do thy Diligence tg^come JJjort/y to me. In fliort let me
ad3,' "■
1. The Church of Ephefus at this time wanted a Bifhop, if ever, when Paul took his lad leave thereof, telling it, that after his Departure grievous Wolves {ko\x\d enter among them, ABs 20. 25?.
2. T'imothy was undoubtedly well qualified for that publick Poft, yet the Holy Ghoft fixes the Ecclefiafti- cal Government in the Presbyters of Ephefusy as^ the Remedy to prevent Schifms, AEis 20- 17, 18, 29.
3. The Apoflle knew he ffiould fee their Faces no more ; ftrange then he fliould make no mention of 7/- mothyy nor of any other fingle Perfon as his Epifcopal Succeffor in that important Poft.
As to 'titus ; if limothy was not Bifhop of Ephe- fusy neither was ititus of Cretey for both their Power and their Work was the fame, and the Epiftles of the fame Strain.
1. It's no where faid that St. Paul made him Bi- fhop of Crete.
2. He was left in that Ifland only for a Seafon ^ for Paul charges him to come to him to Nicopolisy 'Tit. 5. 12. after which we never hear of his return- ing to the Diocefs of Crete. Since then there's an Account of his being at Dalmatiuy 2 'tim. 4. 10. and wc hear no more of him.
8. But fuppofe Timothy and Tttus were real Bifliops
of Ephefus and Cretey it will be no Argument for Di-
ocefan Bifhops, except the Church of Ephefus and
that of Crete did appear to be of the fame Extent
with Qur Diocefan Churches, which can never be
proved.
Did
Mr. J. Owen i Tlca. i ^
Did the Church of Efhefus confifl: of loo or 200 Parifhes, under the Condud of Presbyters, who were all fubjed to "timothy as their Bifhop ? Did they take, an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him as our Pres- byters do to their Ordinary .<* This rauft be proved, or the Inftance of 7'imothy s being Bifhop of Ephefus will be impertinent to the prcfent Cafe.
Nay there are ftrong Prefumptions, that the Church of Ephefus confifled of no more Members than could ordinarily meet in one Place ; that the Bifhop's Di^ ocefs in Ignatitis's Time, and long after, exceeded not the Bounds of a Modern Parifh, appears from the following Inftances out of him.
1. The whole Diocefs met together with the Bi- ihop for publick Worfhip. Ad Smyr.
2. Baptifin was ordinarily adminiftred by the Bi- fliop within his Diocefs,
3. The Bifhop had but one Altar or Communion Table in his Diocefs. Ad Philad,
The excellent Meady a Member of the Church of England, fays, it fhould feem in thofe firfl Times, be- fore Diocefles were divided into leffer and fubordi- nate Churches, we now call Parifhes, and had Pres- byters affigned them ,• they had not only one Altar in one Church, but one Altar to a Church, taking the Church for a Company of the Faithful united under one Bifhop ; and that was in the Place where the Bi- fhop had his Refidence. Proof of Chrijiianity.
'Timothys Church had but one Altar, at which the whole Congregation of the Diocefs ordinarily recei- ved the Lord's Supper in Ignatius's Tim.e, which was many Years after limothys Death. Ad Eph. Nay, more he faith. It -was not lawful without the Bijhop ei- ther to Laptiz,e or celebrate the Lord's Supper^ «y»Vi}r jroifTf. Ad Smyr.
4. No Marriages were folemnized v/ithout the Bi- fhop. Ad Polyc.
t 5 The
14. An Ahndgment of
^, Tuv^ Bifhop took care of the Poor of the Dia- cefs; and that the Congregation often met together^ the Bifliop taking an Account by Na?ne of thofe who were abfent, not omitting Servant Men and Maids. Ad Polyc. pag. 12, 13. Thus we fee Ignatitis's Bi- fhop (i^ any Credit may be given to thofe Epifto- jatory Collections) was but the chief Paftor of a fin- gle Congregation, whofe Members ordinarily met together for perfonal Communion, as will appear to any unprejudic'd Perfon that reads his Epiftles with juft and impartial Obfervation.
On the other Hand, Ignatius^ it's true, makes a difference between Bifhop and Presbyter, but doth not affert,much lefs prove a Superiority of Office by divine Right. We grant, that in his Time, the Name Bifhop began to be appropriated to the lenior Presbyter, who was as Paflor., and the reft his Affiftants ; but this makes little for Englijh Prelacy. Def,
As to what the Redor advances in Favour of the Ignatian Epiftles, Mr. Owen has accounted for it 'm his Hiftory of Ordination : But before I part with Mr. GipSy I muft complement him upon his Conceffi-^ on, " That every Congregation had a Bifhop. Eve-- " ry one of thefe Afiatick Churches, to whom Ignati- *^ us wrote, was (fays he) furniflied with a Prelatick " Bifhop, with Presbyters and Deacons under him.
And let me add, for the further Illuftration of I'iinothy and T'ltus's Cafe ; That,
1. The Multitude of Converts increafing, the Apoftles had need of Affiftants to vifit the new plan- ted Churches in their abfence.
2. These Churches wanted the Prefence of the Apoftles or fome Apoftolical Men to fupply what was wanting, for as yet the Canon of the New Tejia" ment was not framed and finiflicd.
3. The Evangelifts were thcfe Afiiftants. This is plain in the New l^efia7nent, and agreed upon almoft by all, that they were fccondavy Apoftles. Timothy
i$
iWr. J. Owen'j Tlea. 15
is exprefly ordered to do the Work of an Evangelijl. \t appears alfo, that "timothy was no Refidenc or fixed Officer, but went up and down as Faiil\ Companion or Mefibnger to fettle the Churches as other Evange- lifts did, whofe Office is defcribed at large in Eufe^ bins.
Besides, we read of no Appointment of a SucceP- for to I'lmothyy but that of Teachers, 2 Tim. 2.2. the fame tommit thou to faithful Men, whojhall be able to teach others ; therefore the Apoftle bids him ordain Teach- ers or Presbyters : And there is no Account of any other Kind of Minifters, befides thefe Presbyters, who were to fucceed this pretended BifLop.
4. The Ufe of thefe Evangelifts in the Church was temporary, and they are long fince ceafed as Apo- ftles and Prophets are, without any Succeflbrs as fuch. They were extraordinary Perfons, and therefore not fucceeded in that Charader by any Order of Men, but in their ordinary Capacity are fucceeded by Pa- fiors and Teachers, or Presbyters. To proceed :
Some have pretended to make Bifhops of the fevea AJian Angels. Revel
1. When they prove their fupream Power of Jurif- didion, and the Extent of their Diocefs to be the fame with any of ours they fhall be heard. Ignatius in fome of his Epiftles makes them Paftors of partir cular Churches. Ut fupra.
2. Some by thefe Angels underfland the whole Churches : The Style and Conclufion of the Epiftles favour this Opinion ,• all of them conclude thus , He that hath an Ear, let him hear what the Spirit faith unto the Churches, Rev. 2. 17, 25?. Rev. 3. 6, 13, 21. This is Tyconius's old Expofitipn, mentioned by St. Augw ftine. Lib. 3. ^o. de DoBrina Chrif}iana. And is further countenanced by fome Particulars in the Epiftles themfelves, where the fingular Number is often chan- ged into the Plural in the fame Vcrfe. So Rev. 2. 10. Fear none of thofe things "jchid) thou Ihalt fuffer ; be-
' * ■ hold
1 6 An Abridgment of
hold the Devil Jhall cafl fome of you into Prifon, that y^ may be tryed,
3. Afigel is a Name of Office, not of Order, as is agreed by the Learned.
4. It is obferved by niany Chronologers that Ti- mothy was alive, when the Epiftle to the Angel of the Church of Ephejus was written, who is there cliarged, if the Ahgel of ity with leaving his firfl Love : And Ihall we fuppofe, that Timothy, whom Paul fo often commends for his Zeal and unfeigned Faith, was now grown xcmik and cold ? Rev. 2. 4. 5.
5. But to put the Matter out of doubt, it muft be obferved, that St. John, who writ thefe Epiftles, was a 5^ftu by Birth, and calls the Minifters of the Chur- ches the Angels of them, in conformity to the Style of the Jewifh Church, who called the Minifter of e- very Synagogue the Angel of the Church ; to which St. John alludes: They called him alfo Bifliop of the Congregation. Lightfoot, Vol. II. pag. 35.
In Sum : If Presbyters be Scripture Bifhops, as we have proved ; and Diocefari Bifhops have no Foot- ing there, as has been alfo evinc'd, then our Ordina- tions by Presbyters are Jure Divinoy and therefore valid. Q: E. D.
CHAR
Mr. J. Owen'i- flea, 1 7
C H A ?. 11.
kxiwples of Ordi'/idtion by Presbyters in Scrfpturey faul, Barnabas, Timothy, ordained bj Presbj^ fers. Objections anfwered. Impofaion of Hands explained. The JpojUes did not affume the Power of Ordaining to themfehesj but joined the Presbj^ ters with '^/». The Ordaining Power in the Presbj^ ters Commtjjion^ The Power of Ordination no where appropriated to the Bijhops, The Original of Supe^ tior Epifiopacy ; and the Confeq^uences of it.
Arg. II.Tp HE R E are Scrrpture-Exampks of Ch'dinati^ A on by Presbyters. Pauly and Barnabas, and timothy are notorious Inftances thereof.
I. Inflame is grounded on AEls i^, i, 2, 5. N010 there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain Prophets and Teachers — As they miniflred to the Lord — > l%e Itoly Ghofifaid, Separate unto me Barnabas ^WSaui," fw the Work vihereunio I have called them ; and when they had fafled and prayed, and laid their Hands on \mi they fent \m away. Here obferve,
1. This Ordination oi Barnabas and Saul was to the iMinifieriai Work, and it's remarkable they were not called Apoflles before this Time. ABs 14. 14.
2. This Ordination was done by Fafting, and Prayer^ and Impofition of Hands.
3. The Ordainers wgtq Prophets ^nd Teachers, wfid re acknowledged to be Presbyters, or ordinary Mi-
[lifters by Mr.Gips himfelf. Tent. Nov. laft Book, Part I. Chap. 2. p. y.
But here, faith he. Prophets prefided in the Ordi- lation. Part I. p. 8. To this I anfwer,
I. Mr. Gips owns, and allows Mr. Owens Interpre^^ :ation of this Text to be true, that Prophets and
G Teachers
L
1 8 An Abridgment of
Teachers were Presbyters ; but adds, they aded by extraordinary CommiiTion. Part 1. p. j.ad cakem.
True; the Commiflion was fo, as to the Manner of delivering it, and fo are the Rules given by the A- poftles : fo was the Defignation of Saul and Barnabas^ the Perfons to be ordained, extraordinary; but the Ordainers were ordinary 'Teachers^ whatever the Com- miffion was, they ordained by virtue of their inherent and ordinary Power.
2. Here is a plain pofitive Inftance of Presbyters Ordaining, and that by the Authority of the Holy Ghoft. Whether there was a Prefidency, or no, 'tr's not material, fince they performed all the outward Actions of Minifterial Ordination, as Fafiing, Prayer, and Laying on of Handsy and that by a divine Order. What doth the Bifhop more ?
The Queftion isy Who has Power to perform thofe ordaining A6lions, Bifhops or Presbyters ? Here Presbyters do it ,- now, they to whom all the out- ward Adions of Ordination belong, to them the Or- daining Power belongs ; as he that has a Power to fet apart Bread and Wine for Sacramental Ufes, has Power to adminifter the Lord's-Supper ; fo here, they who are authorized to dedicate Perfons to God for the Work of the Miniftry, by Faflingy Prayer, and Imfofnion of Hands, have Power of Ordaining. It is ~ ftrange that all the Ordaining Ads fliould here be performed by Presbyters, and yet Presbyters have no Power to ordain.
5 . All Minifters then, generally fpeaking, h^d extraor- dinary Gifts to favour that new Difpenfation, and there- "^^ fore all thcirParticularities can't be drawn into Example.
4. But fuppoiing thefc Prophets to be extraordina- ry Officers, yet I deny that they ordained in their Extraordinary and Prophetick Capacity ; let our Ad-' verfaries prove it. ^
5. And {ho aid I admit thefe Prophets ptcfidmg were not Presbyter s, I mufl at the fame time fay, Bi-
Jhops
Mr. J. Owen'j Tlea, 1 9
fibps are no Prophets, iior Succeflbrs to the Prophstiek Order.
6- But after all, I deny this Prefidency ; Where is it faid that thefe Prophets were fuperior to Presby- ters ? Or if they were, where is it (aid they prefidcd ill that Ordination ? Or that fuch a Prefidency wa<? neccfTary to future Ordinations ? The Scriptures do not tell us that thefe Prophets prefided here; they joined indeed with the Presbyters, but this Conjun- dion is no Proof of Prefidency in the Cafe, jQnce they were equally empowered to Ordain.
Let any Prelatift prove it if he can, that a Prophet always prefided, and that this Prefidency is effential to Ordination, Et erit mihi magyim Apollo.
Let me add, that Prophets frequently £\%xC\1y no more than fuch as interpret the Scripture, nay, and preach ; i Qor. 14. 3, 4. He that prophefieth fpeaketh un^ to Men, to Edification. Verf. 4. He that prophefieth edi-^ fies the Church. And why may not the Word Prophets betaken ^o in ABs 15. i. Sometimes it's applicable to Men and Women, i Cor. 11, 4, j. Every Woman that prays and prophefyeth.
Prophesyimg Ci^ni^^A likewife t6 PrediSl; now this Gift of foretelling future Events, did not conRitute a diftihft Order of Men, for Women as well as Men prophefy'd, utfupra, AEls 2. p. And the fame Man had four Daughters which didprophcfy.
If this be not fufficient to enervate and weaken the trefidential and Prophetick Objedion, I will fay more on this Head when we come to the fifth Argument. Now I proceed
To the lid Infiance, Which is 'fimotlofy viho was or^ dained by a College of Presbyters, i Tim. 4. 14. NegLEi not the Gift that is in thee, which was giuen thee by Pro* phefy, with the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery.
Can any thing be more exprefs ? 1 am thinking how our Adverfaries vvould triumph if the Apoftle had faiid,Which thbu haft received by the laying on of the Hands of the Bifiiops. C a I
70 An Ahridgmcnt oj
I WOULD fain know, to what End the Presbyters lay Hands on T'i?nothy, if they had no Power to Or- dain ? Mr. Gips fays 'twas only as a Teftimony that the Bifhop ordained with the confent of the' Presby* ters, Part I. f. 86. But this proves nothing ; for,
1. The Confent of the People alfo was necefTary, who ratified the A6tion by their Approbation.
2. Let any produce an Inftance, of Hands laid on for Confent only. The learned Dr. Cave faith. That Impofition of Hands was conftantly ufed as the Right of conferring Ordination upon the Minillers of Chrift. Prim. Cbr. Ed, ^. p^ i$p.
3. In laying on of Hands^ by a Synechdoche^ is meant the whole Minifterial Work of Ordination.' ^he Gift that "fimothy received at his Ordination , was not that of the Spirit^ but the Gift of Officey with which he was inveftedby the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery.
We don't read that the Holy Ghoft was given by Impofition of Hands in Ordination ; "therefore^ fays Paul to I'imothyy lay thy Hands fuddenly on no Man : There had been no neceflity for this Caution, if T/- mothy could have conferred the Spirit by the Touch of his Hand.
Ohj- But 7imothy was ordained by Patd^ with the Concurrence of Presbyters, 2 7lw. i. 6. Stir up the Gift of God -which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands, I anfwer,
1. How doth it appear that this laying on of Hands was for T'moth/s Ordination ? That remains to be proved ; this Gift is faid to be given by Pro- phefy^ I 'tim. ^. 14. i.e. It was prophefied that T/woj^/>y fhould be an eminent and ufeful Minifler; i T'im. i. 1 8. T'his Charge I commit to thee Son Timothy, according to the Prophefies that went before of thee.
2. Pauh laying on of Hands might, for any thing that appears to the contrary, be for conferring the Holy Ghoft, which was ^iwQn by the laying on of
the
Mr. J. 0\xen's TIea. II
the Hands of the Apoflles, without any Ordination. AAs 8. 17, 18. 'They laid their Hands on *emy at^d they received the Holy Gho'ft i and when Simon faii) that thiV laying on of the Apoflles Hands the Holy Ghofl was given —
5. But if he laid on Hands for Ordination, 'tis certain he joined the Presbyters with him; which he had not done if there had not been an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyteh as fuch, which is what we contend for.
Even the Apoftles did not rcferve to themfelves the fole Power of Ordination, how then come the Bifhops to take it to themfelves wholly, exclufive of the Pref- byters ? By what Authority do Bifhops arrogate to themfelres this Supream Power, who are neither Ape- fllesy nor Evangels fls, nor Prophets^ nor Siicceflbrs to them in thatCharader or Capacity?
4. Protestants of old iifed and urged this Text with Applaufe againft the Enemies of the Reforma- tion. From this Place, fays Wljitaker againft BeHar- mine. We under jiand that Timothy had Hands laid on him by PresbyterSy who at that time governed the Church by a Co?72mon-Counci! ; and then falls upon Edlarmine and the Popifli Church for confining the Power of Ordi- nation to the Bifliops exclufive of Presbyters.
5. The Truth of the Matter is, the ordinary Mitii- fters then did in a manner conftantly need the Con- dud of Apoftlesy Evangelifts and Prophets^ till the Ca- non of the NeW'Tefiivnent was colleded and comr pleated. But now, the New-Teflament Canon being compleated, becomes our (landing Rule, and fuper- fcdes the Ufe of thofe extraordinary Guides.
The Apoflks were unfixed and unlimited Of- ficers, and as fuch, had no Succcilbrs, but the Pref- byters fuccceded them in their ordinary Fundion. In the Churches which the Apoftles planted, they fix d Presbyters who were fubjed to 'em, but not to any other Miniflers after the Ccifation of that extraordi- nary Office. C 3 d. The
c 1 An Ahridgment of
6. The Commiffion given to Gofpel Minifiers in-^ eludes the Ordaining Power, for 'tis the fame with that bf the Apoftles, excepting only the extraordina- ry Part of their Miniftry, which was prpper to 'em as Apoflles, and chafed with 'em.
The Apoftles CommifTion is in M^tt. 28. 19, 20. Go teach all Nations^ baptiz^irig \m^ &c. I am with you alwaj', even unto the end of the World. Here obferve,
1. This Commifiion was given to the Apoflles and their Succeflbrs in the Gofpel-Miniflry; for the App-r flies were not to continue themfelves to the End of of the World.
2. The Principal Parts of the Minifterial OfEce are here recited, as Preaching and Baptizing.
5. Under thefe principal Parts of the Minifterial Office are included all other Minifterial Pqwers, (fuch as adminiftring the Lords-Supper, governing thq Flock, ordaining Minifters) as the lefTer in the great- er. Either thele Minifterial Ads are not contained in this Commiflion, or they are included in the Power of Preaching, v/hich in other Places is put for the whole Office of the Miniftry.
But 'tis rational to think the Ordaining Power tp be included in this Commiffion, therefore the Apo- files are impower'd to continue Succeflbrs in the or- dinary ftanding Parts of the Miniftry, to which Or- dination is fubfervient as the Mode of Entrance in- to it.
4. It follows hence. That all who are" admitted into the facred Miniftry, have the whole Minifterial Power committed to 'em, even all that Power which the Apoftles were to tranfmit to their Succelfors. The facred Office of the Miniftry is but one, and can't j^e divided.
Now, let my Lords the Diocefan Bifcops
1. Produce any Cpmmiffion given to them, di- ftind from that of Presbyters, in the New-T'eftament.
2. Let 'em fhew an Ordination of Bifliops di- flind from that of Presbyters. 3« Let
Mr. J. Owen'j- Tlca. a 5
5. Let 'em (hew where the fole Power of Ordina- tion is appropriated to them, and where Presbyters are excluded from it.
4. LtT 'em fhew where the Ncw-'feflament fpecifies the different Quah'fications of Bifhops and Presbyters.
Thus the Presbyters, in the Apoiiolical Times, had the Ordaining Power, which they kept for a confide - rable time, till the Church degenerated from its Pu- rity, and the number of Presbyters increafed, then one Presbyter was chofen as Prefident of the refl, called Bijhopy and by confcnt impower'd to impofe Hands in the Name of his Collegues ; as appears by Mr. Owens Hi/lory of Ordination, hereunto annexed.
Thus the learned Italian Canonifl, in his Inftitutes of the Canon-Law, gives it as the common Opinion of many Primitive Authors,
" That Bifhop and Presbyter were the fame, and " that Presbyter was the Name of the Perfon's Age, " Bijhop of his Office ; but there being many of thefe " in every Church, they determined among them- *' felves,for the preventing of Schifm, that one fliould " be elected by rhemfelves to be fet over the refl, and " the Perfon fo elected retained the Name of Bijhop ^' for Diftindion-fake. The reft were only c-dW^d *' Presbyters ; and in Procefs of Time their Reverence " for thefe titular Bifhops fo increafed, that tiiey be- " gan to obey them as Children do a Father. Jiift. Leg. Can. L. L T'lt. 21.
Hence the fuperior Dignity of Bifhops, who at length fnbjeBed not only to their Hands, but to their Feet alfo, not Presbyters alone, but Jovereign Princes and Emperors ; fo that in Procefs of Time, the poor Pref- byters were no more than the Bijhop's Ctirates, as the Englijh Liturgy diftinguifneth 'em, in the Prayer for Bijbops and Curates.
The eafieft and more honourable Parts of the Mi- niflry, as they were reckoned, the Bijhops referved in their own Hands, and committed the reft to their Presbyters, C 4 CHAP.
^4- An Abridgment of
Chap. HI.
Fresh)'ters have Power to preachy haptize^ confecrate ari^ admifjtfier the Eucb^irifi ; thefe Mimfierid 4^is not ii^erior to QrdwAtion^ evident from their Nature find the Commtjfion given to Mintjlers^ and the Tefii^ mony of St,Y2i\j\, Obj. Diocefan Bifbops not Succefi fors to the Apojlks^ asjuch^ whofe Office was not com^ mumcahle to others. Prelatical "^ur if diet ton ground* ed upon humane and not on divine Laws ; this made evident from 'Cartons^ Statutes^ Laws^ atfd the Manner of making Bifhops, Several Places in England exempted from th^ Bifhop^s Power^ and the Eccleftajiical Court held bj a Presbjter. Epifcopal Power exercifed by Lay-Counfellors, The Jlpojiles^ as Juperior to Presbyters^ had no Sucef^ fors. Ordaining Power included in the Commif-i fion of'Chrifi to MiniJtcrSy further illuflrated.
Jtrg.llJ. TJreseytfrs have Power to preach the Gof- X pel, to L\iptiz.Cy and admin ifler the LoriV- Supper^ therefore have Power to ordain. Preaching, Baptizing, and adminiftring the LordVSupper, are MinifteriaJ Ads, not of an inferior Nature to Ordi- nation : This is apparent from the Nature of Things, and from Scripture.
(i.) From the Nature of the Thing itfelf j let us confider each of thefe Minifterial Ads apart.
I. Preaching the Goffel authoritatively in Chrift's Name, is not inferior to Ordination ; the Preachers pf it are the Ambaflkdors of Chrift, and Co-workers with God ', And is an Ordainer more than *his \ % Cor, 5. 20. 3 Cor. 6- 1^
Mr. J. Owen'i Tlea. 55
f . As to Baptifm, *tis a folemn Dedication of a Perfon to God ; Ordination is no more : Nay, Bap-- tifm has the Preference, *tis a Sacramental Dedicati- on, which Ordination is not. The Ancients argued from Baptifm to Ordination ; as is obferv*d by Lofnhard. lib. 4. Dift. 1 5.
5. Ih the Lor^s-Supper, the Minifter fets apart Bread and Wine as fyrabolical Reprefentations of Je^ fm Chrifl : Now which is greater, to impofe Hands in Ordination, as Bifliops do, or to make the Sacra- mental Body and Blood of Jefus Chrifl, as Presbyters do ? If Presbyters have Power to confecrate holy Things, why not holy Perfons alfo?
I defire an Anfwcr to this Argument ; and if our Adverfaries think fit to confider it, I defire they'll fay fomething to Purpofe, and not after their wont- ed Manner, when gravell'd, obtrude upon us their Maye-hesy and I think 'tis fo andfo, and why maft it he tims and thus.
(2.) It will appear from Scripture, that thefe Mi- Hifterial Ads are not inferior to Ordination. This is evident,
I. From the Commiflion which Chrifl; gave to the Apoftles, Matt. 28. ip, 20. Go teach, baptiz.e. I would fain know whether Chrifl does not mention the chief- efl Parts of a Minifler's Work in this Commiflion? If Ordination had been the main Part of it, he'd have faid. Go ordain MiniflerSy preach and haptix,e. Chrifl*s not mentioning Ordination in this Commiflion, is an Argument that Ordination is not the principal Part of a Minifler's Office, but rather fubordinate to Preaching and Baptizing, and therefore included here as the lefier in the greater
A Commission ufually fpecifies the principal Ads which a Perfon is impowered to do, when others of an inferior Nature are only implied. Commiflions don't run a Minqre ad Majusy a Superior may include phc Duties qf an Inferior, but not on the contrary.
If
a 6 An Abridgment of
If Ordination were fuperior to other Miniflerial A<as> \is probable Chrift would have mentioned it in that Commiilion, becaufe it was immediately di- reded to the Apoftles, whofe Succeflbrs Diocefan Bi- Ihops pretend to be.
2. From the Sentiments of St. Paul, who fays, Cbrifi did not fend him to hafti%e^ hut to preach the Go/pel, J Cor. 1. 17. Surely then by Preaching he means one of the higheft Minifteriai AdSy elfe he would have faid> Chri/i fent me neither to baptize nor to preachy but to ordain Miniflers,
Obj. The Power of Ordination \s denied to Presby- ters, not becaufe Ordination is greater than other Minifterial Ads, but becaufe the Apoftles thought fit to referve it to themfelves, and proper Succeitors who are Diocefan Bifhops.
Anjiuer. This is to beg the Queftion; for, Ei.] We have pro v'd already, that the ApoHles did not referve the Power of Ordination to themfelves, but join'd thie Presbyters with em in Ordinations.
[2.] Diocesan Bifhops are not the Apoftle's Sues ceflbrs as fuch ; i^ fo, then two Things would follow. I. The deftrudion of the modern Englijh Prelacy ; for i^ the Bifhop's Power be equal with that of the A- poftles, 'twill overturn the modern Scheme of Epifco- pal Government, and will not only give em Power o- ver Presbyters, but over Bifhops and all the Churches in the World, for fuch univerfal Power the Apoftles had. A. D.ij.
But they only fucceedthe Apoflles in fome Part of their Power : And fo do the Presbyters too, fucceed 'cm in the fame Power of Dodrine and Difcipline. I fiiall be obliged to any who'll produce one Text that Separates the Power of Dodrine from that of Order and Dominion ; where does the Scripture fix the go- verning Power in one Minifler, and the dodrinal Power in another ? IVi^^t God has joind togethevy let m Man put afunder-.
2. This
Mr. ]. Owen i Tlea. "ly
«. This Succeffion would make our Bi/hops extra- ordinary and unfixed Officers ; for the Apoftles were fo. They had extraordinary Qualifications, CQnfer'd the Hply Ghoft, caft out Devils.
The Apoftles were univerfal Officers, authorifed to preach to all Nations, were divinely infpir'd, and infallibly afTifted in their Minifterial Condud. Thefc ^re Privileges my Lords the Bifhops don't pretend to.
The Apoftles had their Call and CommiiTion im- mediately from Heaven, and manag'd the Affairs of the Church by divine Authority. But Biiliops have no Power by the Law of God, but what Presbyters have equally with them. The whole Jurifdidion of EnglijJj Biftiops is dcriv'd from the Civil Magiftrate ; their Canons^ Conflitutions^ InjtinEiions, Conijocationsy re- ceive their Authority from the Laws of the Land ; and 'tis by Virtue of thefe that the Bifhop is advan- ced above his Fellow-Presbyter.
The learned Dr. Barrow fhews, " That the Apo- " ftolical Office as luch was perfonal and temporary, ^' and therefore according to its Nature and Defign *' not fucceffive or communicable to others in perper " tual Defcendancc from them i that 't:was as fuch *' in all refpecls extraordinary, defign'd for fpecial ^[ Purpofes, difcharg'd by fpecial Aids. Fol Vol. L Treat ffe of the Pope's Supremacy ^ p. 77.
The Learned iuform us, that before William the Conqueror's Time there were no fuch Things in £«- gUnd as we now call Ecclefiaftical or Spiritual Courts ; pnly by the Laws of Ethelflane^ the Bifhops were al- low'd to be prefent with the Sherifts in their Tourne^ Courts, where all Ecclefiaftical Matters were heard and deternpiin'd. He was the firft that, by his Char- ter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclefiaftical Caufes, but leave 'em wholly to the Bifhop. This, with other Remarkables upon this Subjed, has been made out by an ingenious rpodern Pen, Thongs Def. of Mr.n, ' The
l8 An Ahr'idgment of
The incomparable Selden delivers Iiijnfelf on this Subjed thus :
" In the Saxon Times Ecclefiaftical Caufes were J' manag'd jointly by the Bifhop and the Sheriff or " Alderman of the Hundred or County-Court, where " both fat ; the One to judge according to the Laws *' of the Land, the Other to dired according to Di- ^^ vinity. — But at the Norman Conqueft this Kind of *^ holding Ecclefiaftical Pleas in the Hundred, or " County-Court, was taken away by a Law of the *' Conqueror, and directed to all Tenants in the Di- **' ocefs of Remy, that was firft Bifhop of Lincoln, whi- «' ther his See was then tranflated from Donhefler ; ^ and tho' it be fent in the Direftion by Name to *^ them only, yet it feems it grew afterwards to be a « general Law, no otherwife than the Statute of Cir- ^ cumfpeEle agatisy that hath fpecial Reference only to ^ the Bi(hop of Norwkh. Hifi. of lythesy c. 14.
But even then and after, fome Matters of Eccle- jfiaftical Cognifance were determined by the temporal Court, tho' utterly difallow'd by the common Ca- nons and pontifical Laws.
To make this yet more plain, 111 briefly defcant upon fome Statutes, and the Sentiments of Great Men upon this Subjed:, and the Supremacy of the Crown over the Church in Caufes Ecclefiaftical.
I. That ourBifliops Title to Prelatical Jurifdidion is founded on the Laws of the Land, is evident from feveral Ads of Parliament.
When the Clergy even in Edward the IIId*s Time petitioned for the Enlargement of their Power, the King anfwer*d. He would not fart with his Rights in Ecckjiafiical Matters.
But that which fets the Matter in a clear Light, is the 37th of Hen. VIIL where 'tis faid,
" The Archbifhops, Bifliops, Deans and other Ec- ^^ clefiaftical Perfons, have no manner of Jurifdidion *' Ecclefiaftical, but by, under and from your Royal
" Ma-
Mr. J. Owen J Tlea, 19
** Majefty ; — to whom by Scripture all Authority " and Power is wholly given to hear and determine " all'Caufes Ecclefiaftical, and to all fuch Perfons as *^ your Majefty fhall appoint thereunto.
And in Statute 25. 'tis faid, The Clergy flail not nmke Canom zuithout the King s Leave • and in 1641 were im- peach*d by the Parliament for fo doing.
The Laws about Church-Matters, as Articles of Religion, Worfhip^ Ceremonies, Common-Prayer, Ordaining Priefts, Bifhops and Deacons, are enaded by Parliament. See 25 H. VIIL 19.
The AEl of Uniformity has not left the Bilhops Power to add or change one Ceremony in the Church without the Confent of Parliament.
2. This is granted by our ableft Civilians, and o- thers ,* particularly Godolphiny in his Abridgment of the Ecclejiaflical LawSy whofe Words are :
" No fooner had Princes in ancient Times aflign'd *^ and limited certain Matters and Caufes Controver- *' fial, to the Cognifance of Bifhops, and to that end " dignified the Epifcofal Order luith an Ecdefiajlical ^a- '' Yjfdillion — Introd. p. 21.
Even Dr. Jeremy Taylor obferves, " 'Twas never " known in the primitive Church, that ever aAy Ec- " clefiaftical Law did oblige the Church, unlefs the *' fecular Prince did eftablifh it. Cafes of Confc.
" The Nicene Canons became Laws hy the Refcript *^ of the Emperor Confiantine, Zoz,om.
And indeed no Canons were univerfally binding without the Imperial Sandion.
The Author of the Hifioyy of the Reformation, printed at the Defire of the Commons of England, fays,
" That our Ecclefiaftical Courts are not in the *' Hands of the Bifhops and their Clergy, but put ^ over to the Civilians, where often Fees are more «' rtridly look'd after, than the Corredion of Man- / ners. Fart II Pref,
^o An Ahridgment of
Besides, let me addj that the Church of Englanct her felf bears an ample Teftimony to this Truth. Her firft Canon after the Title runs thus :
(T'he Kings Supremacy over the ChurcH of England/ in Caufes Eccle/iafiical, to he maintain d.)
'' As our Duty to the King's moft Excellent Ma- « jefly requires, we decree and ordain, That — all " Bifhops — Deans, Archdeacons, Parfons, Vicars, *^ and all other Ecclefiaftical Perfons, fhall faithfully " keep and obferve, and — fhall caufe to be obferv'd «* and kept of others, all and fingular Laws and Sta- *^ tutes made for reftoring to the Crown-'- the ancient " Jurifdidion over the State Ecclefiaftical. And the *^ fecond Canon excommunicates all thofe, who fhall *• affirm. That the King's Majefty has not — Autho- *' rity in Caufes Ecclefiaftical.
3. The Supremacy of the Englijh Crown in Eccle-* fiaftical Concerns is fufficiently aflerted by the Church of England. Let us defcend to fome Particulars that are explicative of the Cafe.
King WiUiam the Conqueror, a great favourer 0/ the Clergy, would fuffer no Bifhop to excommunicate any of his Barons or Officers, for Adultery, Licell:y or any fuch heinous Crime, except by the King's Command.
The Laws of England make it no \th than a Pr^- munire or a Petty Treafon in Englijh Bifhops, to meet to make Laws for the Church, without a Writ froraf" the Crown.
By the Statute i Edw. VL 2. the Bifhops could hold no Court but in the King's Name ; and 'twas no lefs than a Pramunire to iflue out Procefs in their Own Names, and under their own Seals ; and tho' that Statute feemsto be repeal'd by j Mary 2. yet it lets us fee the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurifdiftion; and I'm miftaken ii it be not reviv'd in i Eliz,. i. which annexes all Ecclefiaftical Jurifdi6tion to the Imperial Crown of England.
t The
Mr. J. Owens Tka. 5 1
Thi fore-cited Ad of Edward VI. affirms, " All « Authority of Jurifdidion Spiritual to be derived *^ from the King's Majefty, as Supreme Head of the « Church. — -•
Dr. He)lin fays, " The Defign of this Law was ta " weaken the Episcopal Power, by forcing the Bi- " fhops from their ftrong Hold of divine Inftitution, *^ and making them no more than the King s Ecclefi- '' aftical Sheriffs.
In this King's Reign, the two Archbifhops, with the Bifhops of Rochejier, of London, of Carlifley and many learned Dodors of the Church, declared in an Aflembly met by his Majefly's Order at Windfor-Caftky That Bifhops and Priefts were one Office in the Be- ginning of Chrift's Religion. StiU, Iren, Pan II. cb. 8.
In King Henry^lll. and King Edward the Vlth's Days, 3 2 Perfons, half of 'em Lay-Gentlemen, were authorifed by their Majefties to infped the Laws of the Church, and to make new ones.
Nay, the Bifhops can make no Orders nor Laws, but the Parliament of England can annul. And when they convene by Authority, their Power is limited.
" And indeed, faith the fore-cited Pen, what is it " that the Civil Magiflrate may not do in the ma- " king a Prelate in the Church of England ? For,
1. The Crown of England chufes the Perfon to be made Bifiiop, and nominates him authoritatively, the Dean and Chapter having no Power to refufe the Writ of Conge d' Eflire.
The King of England in ancient times was inveft- ed with Power to difpofe of all Ecclefiaftical Dig- nities.
2. The King may multiply Bifhops at pleafure ; arid, if he thinks fit, appoint one Biiiop in e\ery Parifh.
By a Statute in King Henry the Vlllth's Time, fix and twenty Suffragan Bijhop are added to the Diocefans. 26 H, VIIL c. 14.
This
5 a An Abridgment of
This Itirig founded five new Bifhopricks, (befides one at Weflminftery which continued not) where none had been before. Fullers Church Hifl. B. 4. p. 338.
3. The Kings of England may delegate the Eccle- fiaftical Jiirifdi(ftioft to whom they pleafe, either to Lay-men or to Presbyters. E. G.
I . This Ecclefiaftick Sovereignty and Government is commonly affign*d to Lay-Chancellors, who judi- cially excommunicate and abfolve Criminals : And thefe Lay-Judges ih Matters of Ecclefiaftical Cogni- zance have their Commiflion for fo doing from the King, and not from the Bifiibp, whdfe Perfori they pretend to reprefent. (Here the governing Power of Bifhops is by Prerogative Royal devolved upon meer Lay-men.)
You muft know by the by, that n# Archbifliops or Bifhops can make any Chancellors, Vicar-Generals^ Commiffaries, or OiEcials, unlefs the King by his fpecial Patent givt them Power fo to do in exprefs Words, as the Bifhop'^s Patents ih Edward the Vlth's Reign evidence, and feveral Statutes m K. Henry VIII. K. Edward VI. and (^^Elizal^eth's Time.
i. In fome Places the Epifcopal Jurifdidion is re- ferv'd to a Presbyter, as in the Peculiars we have in divers Parts of England,
At Bridgnorth 6 Parifhes are govern'd by a Court held by a Preshyterywhich. is not fubjed to the Bifhop's Power.
The learned Godvlphin tells us, there are certain peculiar Jurifdidions belonging to fome certain Pa- rifiies, the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Archdeacon's, and fometimes from the Bifhop s. Jiirifdidion, of which there are 5:7 in the Province of Canterbury. This is a Demonflration that England looks upon the Bi/liop5> Jurifdidion t6 be a meer hu- man thing, becaufe the Law can exempt fome Pa- rifhes from it,
4. The Civil Magiftrate may depofe and deprive Bifhops when they fee /ufl Caufe, Were not the
t NoS'
Mr. J. Owen'j Tleii. 5 ^
Nonjurant BiHjops dcpriv'd of their OiHce, and all Epifcopal Jurifdfcaion ? i.iV.& M 1689.
0/y. Bur the King can't Confecrate him, and *tis the Confecration gives the Epifcopal Po^vcr and Jurifdidion. ^ ^ ,
I Answir, that is nothing to the purpofe ; for in the Church of England,
I. Episcopal Jurifdidion is exercis'd by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors, who were never fo Confccratcd. Now thefe Unconfecrated Gentlemen are authorized to excrcife Jurifdidion in the Bifliops Court, and that not by Deputation from the Bifhop, but by civil and legal Cdnftitution: And by the way let it be ob- ferv'd here.
That i^ Church-Government be an EfTen- tial Part of Diocefan-Epifcopacy, as they, fay it IS, I can't imagine by what Law this Epifcopal Power can be deputed to ah inferior Order of Men, nor by v^hat Logick a Bifhop can remain an entire Bifhop, and part with an EfTcncial of his Epifcopal Order and Dignity. By the fame Rule that Church- Government is exercis'd by Presbyters and Lay- Chancellors, Ordination of Miniflers may be per- form'd by the fame Hands alfo ; for. Power to go- vern the Church, and to ordain Miniflers according to 'em, is equally inherent in the Bifhops. How then comes the Epifcopal Office to be turned over to De- puties ahd Delegates ? My Lord -S'^ro?^ obferves, ' That
* all Laws in tne World, Offices of Confidence and!
* Skill can't be put over or exercis'd by Deputy, ex-
* cept it be contain'd in the Original Grant. Ne- ver did any Chancellor of Englandy or Judge of any Court make a Deputy..
And this he juflly fuppofes to be the Cafe, witli Refped to the Bifhops Office. And with him agrees Bifhop Bedel, who fays,
^ 'Tis One of the mod EfTcntial Parts of a Bifliop's; ' i>uty to govern his Flock, and to inf^ic^ Spiritual
D Cen-
5 4 An Ahridgment of
* Cenfurcs on obftinate OfFenders. And a Bi/hop ' can no more delegate this Power to a Lay-man, than
* he can delegate a Power to Baptize or Ordain. Conftder, for better EJlabliJhing the Church 0/ England.
2. If the Eflence of Epifcopal Power be grounded upon the Confecration of Biftops, then I demand a clear Scripture. Canon or Text for this Confecration of Bifhops, as diflind from the Ordination of Pref- byters. This Demand can't be thought unreafonable, lince the Weight of the Controverfy turns upon this* Hinge.
3. The Vanity of this Obje6i:ion will further appear, if you confider that Bifhops have been made without the Ceremony of Confecration. Anciently, according to the Canon-Law, and where the Pope's Spiritual Power was in Force, Bifhops were not fo much by EleEiion as Poftulation ; and, in that Cafe, the Perfon eleded was a Bifhop prefently, by the Af- fent of the Superior, without Confirmation, or Con- fecration. See Thongs Def. ex Godolph. p. 59.
Thus we fee Bifhops, as fuperior to Presbyters, are not confider'd as Jure Divino Officers by the Englijh Laws.
Besides, our Learned Writers againft Popery, do unanimoufly deny the Apoftles, as fuch, to have any Succeflbrs.
The noble Sadeel thinks him no better than an Atheift in Divinity, wTio confounds the Apcfllefiip with Epijcopacy, Sad. Contr. T'uy. p. 570.
The Learned Y^i^Barrov: fays,
* The Offices of an Apoflle^ and of a Bijhop^ are
* not in their Nature well confiftent ; for the Apofile-
* JJjip is an extraordinary Office, charg'd with the
* Inftrudion and Government of the whole World :
* Epifcopacy is an ordinary Handing Charge, affix'd to
* one Place. A Difparagement to the Apollolical ' Miniftry, for him (Peter) to take upon him the ' Bifhoprick of Rojiie, as it the King fhou'd become
* Mayor
Mr.]. Owen's Tlea. 55
* Mayor of London^ or the Bifliop of London fhou'd
* be Vicar of Pancrasy or a Bifhop made a Deacon ; Of. Supr. p. 120, 121
Dr. Lightfoot proves, by feveral Argument^, that the Apoftles were an Order unimitablc in the Church, Vol. I. p. 187.
Ol^j. Th^^ Ordainers gave not the Ordaining Pow- er to Presbyters ; therefore it belongs not to 'em.
j^nfw. Presbyters are ordain'd to the Minifterial Office, of which the Ordaining Power is a Branch. 'Tis not the Intention of the Ordaincr, but the Of- fice, as conftituted by Chrift, that is the Meafure of the Power : The Diftindion of Office and Degree is no where affirmed in the New Tejiamem ; if it be, fhew it.
The Ordaining Power is not mention'd in the Apoftle's CommilTion, M^^//;. 28. 20. yet *tis included therein. Popifh Ordainers did not intentionally givo the Reforming Power to the firfl Reformers ; yet no Protellant will queftion but 'twas annex'd to their Office, as Miniifers.
Now, the office of the Miniftry is not from Many but from the Inftitution of Chrifl. The Presbyter:^ that ordain'd in the New-Tefiamenty did not derive their Power from any Gift of their Ordahiersy but from the Charter and Commiffion of Chrift, i 7/>//. 3. The Apoftles themfelves only Minifterially inverted thofe in the Sacred Office, who were defirous of, and qualify 'd for it : By this Invcftiture, they don't pro- perly confer the Power, but only declare the Perfon to be, on his own Conient» purfuant to ChrilVs Char- ter, authorized, and oblig'd to perform thofe Minifte- rial A(5ls that belong to fuch a facrcd Fundion in the Church, and, by Fafting and Prayer, recommend him and his Labours to the Divine Blefling, as the ingenious Mr. J. Boyfe obferves in his Poft.fcript to the office of a Scriptural Bijhop, p. 83. Mr. Gips very prudently paifeth by this Argument,
D 2 CHAP.
36 An Ahidgment of
Chap. IV.
Our Ordimtton the fame with that in the Reformed Churches Abroad. They might have BiJhopSy but mil not^ because they believe an inherent Power of Ordination in Presbyters, ObjeBions about the French Miniflers Re-ordi nation anfwered. The Foreign Reformed Churches ajfert the Identity of Bi[hops and Presbyters^ tn their Confejfions of Fanh^ Sec. J particular Account of ^w^^AthnA and Denmark.
Arg,Y\J.^^U^ Ordination by Presbyters, is the fame ^^ with the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches ; therefore valid.
I. But fome will fay, The Foreign Reformed Churches have tio true Miniflers, for want of Epifco- pal Ordination, and confequently no Salvation to be had in their Communion ; thus Mr. Dodwely and Others, who at the fame time would have us believe the Rcmijh Church to be a true Church. O happy Rome! O miferable Reformed Churches ! if the Cale be thus.
What Reafon can be aflign'd, that any, who call themfelves ProteflantSy iTiould unchurch and danin the greatefl: Part of Reformed Chriftians, in Favour of a Defpotick, Unfcriptural Prelacy ? It's flrange that our Church, fo boafted of for Charity, fhou'd deny the Character of a true Church to a Society of Chrillians agreeing with her in all the elfential Parts of Chri- ftianity, and differing from her only in fome Modes of Difcipline and Worfhip : But that fhe fliou'd tranf- fcr this Character to an Idolatrous Society of People, h an Indication how wide their Practices are from their Principles, who, while they flrain at a Gnaty Iwallovj a Camel. 2. O-
Mr. J. Owen'i Tlea. 57
2. Others fay, The Cafe of the Reformed Churches is a Cafe of Neceffity, for they can have no Bifhops ; and where they can't be had. Ordinations by Prcf- byters may be lawful. I Answer,
I. Their Cafe is no Matter of Neceffity ; For what hinders their having Bifhops, if they had a mind of em ? Is it the Magiftrates ? No, that can't be fa id of Holland, Switze/lajtdy Geneva, dec. where they've Magiftrates of their own. And ftippofe they are under a Popifh Magiftracy, that won d be no Bar to the Epifcopal Order, if they were defipous of it. The Primitive Chrifiians, for :?oo Years, were under Pagan Magiftrates, yet wanted no Minifterial Order ot Chrift's Appointment.
Did Chrift ever appoint an Order of Minifler? in his Church, which mayn't be had in the moft difficult Times ? If Civil Magiftrates be againfl: Bi- fhops, this may eclipfc their Lordly Greatnefs, but it need not prejudice their Jus Divinum, if they have any. Why can't the Apoftles Succeflbrs fub/ill with as little Dependance upon Civil Authority, as the Apoftles themfelves did ?
Yet it can't be deny'd, but in France the Proteftants had a Polity of their own, by the Edi^ of NantSy which enabled 'em, i^ they were fo difpos'd, to get Diocefan Bifhops. They had their Eccleliaftical Sy- nods, and Moderators to prefide in 'em : And why not Bifhops alfo, had they judg'd it neceflary ? Nor is it to be fuppos'd that their Popifh Maflers would have lik'd 'em the worfe for conforming to their own Epifcopal Government. Suppofe the Proteflants in Germany defir'd a Set of Diocefan Bifhops over them, I don't doubt but his Imperial Majefly would favour the Defign, and rejoyce in that laudable Advance to- wards the Romilh Hierarchy.
2. When the French Churches were earneftly fo- licited (particularly by Bifhop Moretcn) to receive a
D 3 Clergy
3 8 An Abridgment of
Clergy ordain'd by EngliJJ) Bifhops, they abfolutely refufed that Motion ; Peter Moulin, a famous French Proteflant Minifter, in his Letter to the Bp. of Win- chefler, excii/ing himfelf for not making the Difference between Bifhops and Presbyters to be of Divine Ap- pointmentj he plcads,tl}atifbe had laid the Difference on that Foundationythe French Churches ivoudhavejikncd him.
g. The Learned Writers of the Foreign Churches, who vindicated their Ordinations againfl: the Papifts, never faid, T'hey woiid have BifiopSy but cant have 'em. But they juftify their Ordinations, as performed ac- cording to Scripture, and do afl'crt an inherent Power in Presbyters, as fuch, to ordain : This h undeniable to any Body who reads their Difcourfes upon this Subjed. See Daille\ Bucer, Boetius, Sadeel, &c. who profeffedly write of Ordination by Presbyters, againft the Papifts y befides the vafl Numbers that treat oc- cafionally of this Subjed in their Common Places, and other Writings, fuch as MelanBlion, Mujcalns^ Z.anchy, Ravanel, the Leyden ProfefTors, who all infift upon the Right of Presbyters to ordain. Alelan. loc. com. f. 134. Mufc. loc. com. f. I pp. Zamh. torn. 7. J>. 537. Ravan. in verb. Epifc. Synopf. par. theoL 61^.
The Learned Le Blanc fays, ' *Tisthe more general
* Opinion of the Englijh ythsit Epifcopacy 2ir\dPresbytery are
* diftinft Offices ; but the relV of the Reformed, as ^ alfo they of the Auguflan Confeffion, do unanimoufly
* believe that there is no fuch Diilindion by Divine
* Right, and that the Superiority of Bifhops above
* Presbyters is only of Ecch/iaftick Right, and has been
* introduc'd into the Church by Degrees.
Le Blanc adds, ' That even 'in the Apoftle's Days,
* a certain Prefidency of Honour and Place was gi- ^ ven unto him who did excel his Collegues, either
* in Age or Time of his Ordination ,• fo that he was
* as Prefident orModerator of the Presbytery, and yet
* looked upon as altogether of the fame Office, and
* had no Power or Jurifdiftion over his Collegues.
* But
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlea. :}^
' But in the following Ages it To fell our, that
* this Primacy was not confer'd according to the Per-
* fon s Age, or Time of Entrance ; but a Cuftom
* was introduced, that one of the Presbyters fhould
* be chofen by the Votes of the whole College, who
* fliould continually prefide, after the fame manner,
* over the Prepbyters ; and thefe, after a while, afium*d ' to themfelves the Name of BiJhopSy and, by Degrees,
* gain'd more and more Prerogatives, and brought ' their Collegues into Subjection to em, till at length
* the Matter grew up to that Tyranny which now
* obtains in the Church of Rome. T/jes. Sed. de Gr. Mimfi. Monfieur Jurieu fpeaks to the fame Purpofe. Pafi. Letters, Let. 14. Monfieur C/^«^^' fays, ' That
* the Diftindion of Bijhop and Presbyter is not only ' what they can't prove out of Scripture, but that
* which even contradids the exprefs Words of Scri-
* pture, where Bf/hop and Presbyter are Names of one
* and the fame Office. Hijior. def. Nam. torn. 4. p. 95-.
Obj. But fome French Proteftant Miniflers have fubmitted to Re-ordination.
Anfw. 'Tis true : But they did not do fo till they wanted Bread, and could have no Relief without conforming to the Church of England.
Besides, the French Minifters hold Ordination but a Ceremony, and may be re-iterated twenty times, if there be Occafion. Add to this, that of late Years fome Arts have been us'd to procure Letters from fome eminent Foreign Divines, to condemn the Non- conformifts here, without hearing both Sides. Thij is evident, by Dr. Morlefs Letter to the famous Bo- chart^ who vindicates us from the Dodor's Calumny, Boch. Phal. ?iT Can. addend, p. 66. Since then, the Bi- fhop of Londons Table, and ambitious Defires af- ter an Englijh Bilhoprick, have prevail'd with Mr. 7«r- retin to Ipeak a little dubioufly of the Matter.
4. We may judge of the Foreign Churches (both Lutheran and Refonnd) by their Confeffions, which
D 4 are
4-0 An Abridgment of
arc the moft authentick Teflimony of* their Senfe about Epilcopacy. In their ConFeflions, 'tis laid down as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Gerrmny, Hungary, Demnark, Sivedekiid, and the Low-Countries, That Bifhops and Presbyters are, by Divine Inditution, the fame ; and tho' fome of thofe Churches admit a kind of Epif- copacy, yet they don't pretend 'tis by a Divine Right, fuperior to Presbytery, bgt acknowledge it to be only a prudential Conftitution.
The French Confcflion ailerts an Equality of Power in all Miniders, An. 30. And no Man muft be ordain'd in the French Q\\mc\\^s, but he muft fubfcribe their publick CoufefTion of Faith. Dnrel. p. 52. Lc^ Rocq\ Coiiform, cap. i . Art. p. & cap. 3 . Art. 1 .
The Dutch Confcilion fpeaks the very fame Thing, j4rt. 3r.- When that Article, which alTerted the Pa- rity ot Minifters was read, the Bifhop oi Landaff, in his own Name, and in the Name of his Brethren, protcded againft it ; but no Diflike was fhown to this Article by the Deputies of any of the Reformed Churches (befides the Engltjh;) by which we may judge v\''hat their Sentiments were in this Point.
. Bur Dr. Maurice fays. The Lutheran Reformation .|receiv''d Diocefan Epifcopacy.
To which I anfwer. That when the DoBor is at ^ J^ofs for an Argument, he never wants Confidence to face it out : A fliort View of the Ecclefiaflick State of Denmark and Sweden, two Lutheran Kingdoms, will prove what J fay, and (liow what little Credit is to be given to the bold Alfertions of that great Cham- pion of the Caufe.
* Thf Gofpel,faysoneof theZ-«f/>^>72« Articlesjgives * to thofe that are fet over the Churches, a Command to f teach the Gofpel, to remit Sins, to adminifter the ' Sacraments, and Jurifditftion alfo. And, by the Con- f feilion.cif all, even our Advcrfaries, 'tis manifefl:, that I chi&/Pow0t is by Divine Right comnion tp all that
Mr. J. Owen iTlea. 41
f are fet over the Churches, whether they be call'd
* Paftorsy or Preshyters^ or Bijhops.
^ But one thing made a Difference afterwards be- ^ twcen Bifhops and Presbyters, vizj. Ordination ;
* becaiife 'twas order'd that one Bifhop fhould ordain ^ Miniftersin fcveral Churches : But iincc Bifhops and
* Pallors are not different Degrees by Divine Right,
* 'tis manifefl, that an Ordination perform'd by a Pa-
* florin his own Church, is valid; and, that the com- ' mon Jurifdidion of Excommunicating thofethat are
* guilty of mapifefl Crimes, does belong to all Paftors.
Now, ii publick ConfefJions of Faith be not the true Standard of Dodrine in a Church, how fLail we judge of its Sentiments ? This is not only a re- ceived Article among em, but their Practice is con- formable thereto, as appears from the two enfuing Inftances.
It's certain that the Power and Grandeur of the Prelates contributed not a little towards the Reforma- tion of the two Northern Crowns.
A modern Hiflorian, and a late ' AmbafTador in the North, tells us, ' That in Denmark there are fix
* Superintendants , who take it very kindly to be ^ called BifiapSy and My Lord Thefe have no Teni-
* poralities, keep no Ecclefiaftical Courts, have no ^ Cathedrals, with Prebends, Canons, Deans, Sub- ' Dean^, &c. but are only Primi inter pares ^ the firjl
* among Equals, having the Rank above the inferior
* Clergy of their Province, and the Infpedion into
* their Dodrine and Manners. Prefent State of Denmark, Chap. XVI. />. 231, 232. They all depend upon the fuperior Confillor'y or Meeting of the Clergy. Their Habit is common with that of the other Miniilers.
Abbot Vertoty in his Hiflory of Sweden^ fays. That in the Year 1527, Gujlauiis gave the lafl and fatal Blow to the Aurhotity of the Swedifi Bifhqps ; (o that tde Siuedijh Archbifliops and Bifliops retain now little but the Narrie^ and a bare Show of Superiority over
Super-
4-1 An Abridgment of
Superintendants ; For, fays the Ahhoty the Reforma- tion deprived 'em of their former Ecdefiaftkal Jurif- diBion. They have ten Bifhops who are confinU to their own Imployments, and are never troubled with the Adminiftration of any fecular Aftairs. Under the Bifhops, there are 7 or 8 Superintendants^ who dif- fer only from the Bifhops in Name. — Atlas Geogr,
Chap. V.
Voftfh Ordmxtion allowed in England. Ours better then that ; f roved by four Arguments. Poprfh Ordaimrs are Heretkks^ Defcendants from Anti- chrift. The manner of their Ordination Vnfcrip^ turaly and Superjlitious, Popifb Priejls Idolaters. Prctejlant Churches abroad look on Popiflj Ordi^ nations as unfoundy therefore reordain Converted Priefls. Romijh Bifhops not Succeffors of the Apojlles.
Arg. V. "T^HE Church of England owns the Ordi- i nation of the Church of Rome^ and therefore does not re-ordain Popifh Priefls when they turn Proteilants ; Now Ordination by Presbyters is better than the Ordinations of Rome^ as will appear by thefe four following Things ; their Ordainers are incapable,, their Ordinations Unfcriptural, the Or- dained obtruded upon the People and fet a part for Idolatrous Service.
I. Popish Ordaining Bifhops are incapable upon two Accounts; Becaufe they are Schifmatical and Heretical. Paul's Bifhop mujl be Sound in the Faith, Popifh Ordainers are Enemies to the true Faith, and Maiiitainers of corrupt and damnable Do<^rines.
raufs
Mr. J. Ovven'j Tlea. 4^
Paufs Bi/hop mufl he blamelefs, the Husband of one Wife. But Popifli Biihops forbid to Marry, and yet alJow Fornication ; and even in Rome itfelf the Center of Prelacy, the Church glvts publick Licenfe to Baw- dy-houfes. Paul's Bifhop mufthe a Lover of good Men. Popift Prelates mortally hate all that are not of their Communion, and take an Oath to deftroy all thofe who oppofe the Pope.
Shall the Sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Minifters of Chrift, and the Minifters of the Reformation be rcjefted as no Minivers ? Can any thing be more abfurd, than that the Minifters of Antichrift fhou'd make true Minifters, and the Mi- nifters of Chrift make falfe Prophets by one and the fame Ordaining Ad ?
2. The Popifh Bifhops derive their Power from the Pope, who in the Opinion of the Church of Eng' land is the Antkhrifl, and no wonder, fince the very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Chrift, and confequently a moft treafonable Ufurpation. If he be the Antichrift, are not his Or- dinations Antichriftian, or at leaft inferior to thofe of Proteftant Minifters ?
II. The manner of Popi/h Ordinations is unfcrip- tural and fuperftitious. Popifh Minifters afcend to the Priefthood by feveral Unjuftifiable Steps.
1. They ordain em Door-keepers, whofe Office is to ring the Bell, and to open the Church Veftry, and the Prieft's Book —- .
2. They make cm Readers, whofe Work 'tis to read and fing the Leffons, and ;o Blefs the Bread and firft Fruits.
3. The next Step is that oi Exorcifls, whofe pre- tended Office is to caft out Devils : thefe Sacred Con* jurersy who take upon 'em to difpoiTefs Devils, are infe- rior to the very Deacons who ferve T'ahles, and yet equal to the very Apoflles, were they able to perform what they un4.eruke in tlieir Ordination.
4. Then
44 An Abridgment of
4. Then they make 'em Acolythitesy whofe Office h to be Taper-Bearers, to light Candles, to bring Wine and Water for the Eucharifl ; they who were ordain'd to conquer Devils are now degraded to the mean Occupation of Under Servitors, and yet this muft be caird an Advancement.
5. After this, they ch'mb to the Degree of Sub- deacons, whofe Bufinefs is to prepare Water for the Miniftry of the Altar, to ferve the Deacons, to wafh the Palls of the Corporals, to prefent the Cup and Faten for the ufe of their Idolatrous Sacrifice.
6. Then they make 'era Deacons, whofe Office is to Baptize and Preach as in the Englijh Church.
7. From Deacons, they afcend to the Order of Priefthood; the Form of making em is very ridiculous and Heathenifh, as you may fee at large in the Poni- Jic. Rom. de Ordin. '
How different is this Form of Ordination from that in Scripture ? Shall they who pafs under fuch Unfcriptural Forms of Door-keepers^ Readers^ Exorcifls, C'c. be accounted Minifters of Chrifl, and muil: thofe, wbofe Ordinations are according to Scripture, be reckoned Intruders ?
III. Our Ordinations are better than Popifh Or- dinations, becanfe our Candidates are found in the Faith, are not obtruded upon the People without their Confent, and nothing i% requird of 'em but Obedience to the Laws of Chrifl: ; Whereas Popifh Friefts are Idolaters, made without the Eleftion of the People contrary to Apoflolical and Primitive Pracftice, as our Learned Writers againft the Papifts have prov'd. Willet. Synops. yContro. Q. 2.
Bfsides, the Romifh Priei^s are fworn to obferve all the Decrees of the Heretical Council of Trent, which captivates their Confcience^ to all the Idola- tries and Errors of the Church oi Rome. They take alfo an Oath of Canonical Obedience to their Bifhops, and to the Pope^ which Dr. WtUet makf s a Mark of Antichrifi. Controv, 4v Q. 10. /. 23 3. ....4. The
Mr.]. Owm'sTlea. 45
The firfl Inftance of an Oath requir'd by Ecclefi- afticaJ Guides to bind Perfons to their Communion, is that of Novatus the Heretick, who Avore all his Communicants not to return to Cornelius. Ep. torn, ad Fab.-' - in Eufeb.
IV. Ours are better than Popifli Ordinations, if we confider the Office to which they are ordain'd, which is one of the groffeft Pieces of Idolatry that ever was in the World, njiz.. the cfering up of their Bread-Idol —
Fo R thefe Reafons the Reformed French Churches did not admit Popifh Priefts, (who had forfaken the Roman Communion) into the Miniftry, without long and diligent Infpedion and Tryal : Nor were they then fuffer^d to exercife as Minifters, till they fubmitted to another Ordination. — Yet thefe Idola- trous Shavelings, whofe Ordaincrs are the Pope's Vaflals, whofe Ordination is the Produd of a pro- phanc fuperflitious Invention, and whofe Work is to make a Wafer-God-, I fay, thefe pafs for true Mini- flers in the Ch — of Eng'-d.
Ohj. But Popifh Ordinations are done by Dioce- fan Bifhops, which you have not, —
Anfiu^ This Objedion, (which has been anfwer'd already) fuppofes three Things which are notoriouflv falfe.
1. That the fole Power of Ordination was in the Apoftles.
2. That they had SuccefTors in the Apoftolical Of- fice j both which weVe difprov'd.
3. It fuppofes, that Popifh Idolatrous Bifliops are the Apoflles Succeflbrs, which can't but found harfh in Proteflant Ears. Can they be the Apoflles Suc- ceflbrs, who have renounc'd the Apoflolical Dodrine and Difcipline ? Judge ye.
Now, if either of thefe three Points fail, this Objedion is impertinent ; how much more (o when all the three are precarious : Ordinations by Presby- ters
4-6 An Abridgment of
ters are in all Things confefTedly good, except the Concurrence of a Diocefan Bifhop ; the Popi/h Or- dinations have nothing to recommend em but the Idolatrous Heretical Hand of a Nominal Bifhop — - and why they fhou'd be received;, is what I muft not account for.
Chap. VI.
Presbyters impofe Hands in Ordinations^ therefore have Power to Ordain, Englifh Presbyters Or^ dain with their Bi/hop. Their Impofition of Hands fgnifies the Ordaining J^^ and not only Confent^ as Dr. Cave confejjes. In/lances of Ordination by Presbyters in the New-Teftament. No In^ fiance in Scripture oj a Diocefan Bifhop^s being concerned in any Ordination^ or Church-Govern^ ment.
PRESBYTERS have Power to impofe Hands in Ordination, therefore have Power to Ordain. That Presbyters may impofe Hands, is fo undenia- ble, that, to this Day, the Presbyters in the Church of Romey and in that of Englandy are admitted to joyn with the Bifhop in Impoiicion of Hands ; there- fore have Power to Ordain : For
That which is an Ordaining Ad, befpeaks an Ordaining Power, {aBus prafuppomt potentiam :) But Impofition of Hands "in Ordination is an Ordaining Aft, therefore
Now, if impofing of Hands in Ordination be no Evidence of an Ordaining Power, how come the Bifhops to urge that Scripture, Lay Hands fuddenl, on no Many i Tim. 5. 22. in Favour of T'limthys Or- daining Power; and, from this Impofition of Hands, to infer he was Bifhop of Ephefus ? Irs
Mr. J. OwenV Tlea. 47
It's a meer Sophifm, and, indeed, fuch as betrays the VVeaknefs of the Prelatical Caufe, to acknowledge that Presbyters may perform all the outward Ads of Ordination, but not as Ordainers. This is as if one fliould fay a Presbyter had Power to perform all Minifterial Ads to a Child in Baptifm, but he has no Power to baptize.
If Presbyters impofing of Hands fignify no Or- daining Power, what does it import ? Turrianu^, the Jefuit, fays, it fignifies their Approbation of the Bi- ihop*s Ad : So Dr. Heylyn^ Dr. laylory and others.
That this is not fhe Meaning of it, has been prov'd under Argument II. Their faying Ainen to to the Ordination-Prayer, wou'd be a fufEcient Ex* preflion of their Confenr. Let our Advefaries pro- duce one Text that direds Presbyters to givo, their Confent by the Impofition of Hands.
Even the People's Approbation was requir'd in Primitive Ordinations -, but they were never admitted to fignify their Confent, by laying on their Hands wirh the Bifhop. If no more be intended by it than a bare Approbation, how come the Bifhops alone to lay Hands upon Deacons, without their Confent ? Why is not the Presbyters Confent necefiary in the Deaconical Ordination alfo }
But this Signification is deferted by a Learned Bifhop, who thinks Presbyters dedicate him to God for the Miniflry, which is confer 'd on him by the Bifhop.
Have we any ground for this Diflindion in the New Teflament ? How can it be faid, chat the Mini* ftry is confer'd by the Bifhop hrfl, and afterwards the Presbyters dedicate the Perfon to God, when both Bifhops and Presbyters do lay on Hands together .>
But what is Ordination itfelf but a Dedication of the Perfon to God for the Miniftry ?Does the Bifhop do any thing more in conferring the Miniflry } He can't do it by a meer phyfical Contad ; it muft be
* there-
^% An Abridgment of
therefdre by a moral Ad, /. e. by laying Hands on a fit Pcrfony according to God's appointment, to dedi- cate him to God for the Miniftry.
. The Miiiifterial Power is immediately from Chrifl, and not from the Bifhop. Ordainers do but open the Door, or determine the Perfon that from Chrifl fliall receive the Power, and then put him folemhly into PolTefTion. ASis 20: 28.
The moderate Affetters 6f Epifcopacy do acknow- ledge, that Presbyters in Ordination lay on Hands (with the Bifhop) as Ordainers.. Forbes Iren. I. 2. c ii-p' i6^- Dr. Fiilk m Tz>. i. §. 2. with whom agrees the Arc'hbifhOp of S^alato. de Reb. EccL 11. 2. /. 187.
Even Dodor Cave^ (whofe Authority, with
the true Sons of the Church, is become almoft m^i- fputable) fays. That Impofition of Hands was lis'd as the Right of Conferring Ordination upon the Mini- fters of Chrift. Pnm. Cbr.p. 159. Ed. 5.
By the Author to the/i^^r^ii^j, Impofitionof Hands. is put for the whole Miniftry and the Order of Church-Government, Cap. 6. 2.
Ohj. Where do you read that Presbyters Ordain'd without a Bifhop ? To which I anfwer,
1. This Objedio'n grants the Argurrient, that Presbyters have Power of Ordination, but not to be exerted without the Bi/Iiop. Admit they have an inherent Power, and it's all we plead for.
2. Paiil and T'lmothy were Ordained by Presbyters without fuperior Bifhops. AVts 13. All the Ordmati- ons of Presbyters in the Apoflles time, and for three hundred Years after Chrfft, were doile by Presbyters without Diocefan Bifhops.
Ob]. But Presbyters in the New Teflament Or- dain'd under the Diredtion of Apoflles and Prophets; I anfwer,
'Twas fit they fhould do fo, while there wefe fuch' extraordinary Men in the Church ; but now Apo-^ files and Proohets are ceas'd^ and ha^^e left no Sue-
cefibrs'
Mr. J. Owens Tlea. 49
Succeflbrs in the Apoflolick and Prophetical Fundions as fuch. Would they have admitted Presbyters to Xoin with *ein in O.dinatfdns, if they had not had a Right to ordain ? It can't be reafonablyfuppos'd they would.
I HAVE jproduc'd twX) Examples of Presbyters or- daining, AHs 15. I, ii 3. and I I'im. jf. 14. And now- Jet our Adverfaries fho\^ one New Teftament Inflance of Ordination by Bifliops, as an Order of Men di-* ftind from and fuperior to Presbyters. Nay more> let em fiiow us ^ where a Diocefan Bifliop is men- ' tion d in Scripture at all> as concern'd in any A6i
* of Ordination, or of Church-Government. If nei-
* ther Jpojlles nor Evangdifts were frx*d Diocefan Bi-
* fhops, either the Power of Ordination and Govern-
* ment mull, after their Deceafe, be left in the Hands ^ of thofe Presbyter-Bifhops which they ordain'd \vi *. every Church or City, or it muft entirely ceafe ;
* there being no Scripture Evidence of any Diocefaa
* Bifliop to w^hom it was committed. Mr.Boyfe,/'.!^^.
5. The old Canons reflrain the Bifhop, that he muft not ordain without his Presbyters : We may fay as well then, that Bi/hops have no -Power to ordain, becanfe they were not ordinarily to do it without their Presbyters-
In fine, let our Adverfaries %iv^ one Inflance of Hands laid on in Ordination for Confent only. I may as well fay, the Bifhop laid on Hands to figni- fy his Confent,' beeaufe the Canon fays that he muft not ordain without the Confent of hi$ Clergy, fin^ Clerkonim ConciUo. Concil. Carthaff. Can. 22. Thefe Canons were made by Bifhops.
CHAR
'b*
^o An Ahridgment of
Chap. VII.
Among the Jews, he who ordained himfelf^ might d?r- dain his Difcifles ; fo it was among the Chriftims^ till by degrees the Chief Presbyter was transjormed into a Prelatical Bijhop^ from whom the Pope fprung. It is well for the Presbyterians that the Pope is a. Bifbop.
Among the Jeivs any one that was ordain'd •'*• himfelF might ordain another ; and if fo, why
may not Presbyters ordain Presbyters, fince many of the Learned think that the Government of the Chri- flian Church was form'd after the Pattern of the yewijb Synagogues.
The general Rule for Ordinations among the Jews was, that every one who was regularly ordain'd him- felf, had the Power of ordaining his Difciples, till' the Time of Hillely Uncie or Grandfather to Gama- liely when 'twas refolv'd, that none might ordain without the Prefence of the Principal of the Sanhe- drin, or a Licenfe from him. Canmis Lightfoot.
Selden fays, that St. Paufs creating of Presbyters^, was according to the cuilom of creating Elders a- mong the Jews \ Paul being brought up at the Feet of Gamaliel as his Difclple, and very probably had created him a Jewifli Elder, before he was a Chriftian ; by vertue of which Ordination> in all likelihood, the the Jews admitted him to preach in their Syna- gogues.
In fhort, the Cafe of Presbyters in point of Ordi- nation is much the fame with that of the Jewiffj El- ders. Every one that was ordain'd himfclf, had ori- ginally the Power of ord^iining others, the Exercife of which Power was afi'^" wards reftrain'd by a Ca- non of that Church.
So
Mr. J. Owen'j' Tlea. 5 i
So in the Chriftian Church ; at firft in Scripture limes, Presbyters had a common Power of Ordina- tion, but afterwards for the prevention of Schifm, the Ordaining Power was by degrees devolv'd upon a few Senior or Chief Presbyters, whom we now call Bifhops, and the other Presbyters were reftrain'd from that Work by common Confent, as Jerom obferves iti tit. 1.
But did this continuance of Superiority among Ec- clefiafticks cure the World of Schifm ? by no means; but on the contrary, diftra(5^ions and divifions in the Church grew to a greater height under thefe humane Bifhops, by whofe fuperior Influence the Roinan Pon- tiff was hatcht,
'Tis to this Order, that the Papacy, wtiich has given fo fatal a Blow to the Chriftian Reh'gion, owes its Original. What wou'd our Adverfaries have faid if his Holinefs had fprung from Presbyterian Parity ? If the Pope was a Presbyterian as he h a. Bifhop, I fancy the Presbyterians had been all banifhed the Earth long ago, as profefled Enemies to true Chrifti- anity, and Ailertors of a Government that had u/her* ed into the World t/:e Mother of Harlots. But huft, iince 'his Holinefs derives his Being from Prelacy, fay no more ; they are all Schifmaticks, who receive not their Ordinations from the Beaft, or the Animals that lineally defcend from him.
CHAP.
5 2 An Ahridgment oj :
C HAP. IV.
The Power of the Kjys^, which includes the Or darn- ing Power ^ given to Presbjters, The Power of Do6irine^ Ordination, and Difcipline tnfef arable.
Arg. VIII. Tp HE Keys of .the Kingdom of Hea- A ten are, committed to Presbyters, therefore Power of Ordination. That the. Keys do contain in 'em the Power of Ordination is acknow- ledged by Papifts, and Proteflants. Cort?, a Lap. Cbemnit. Bucer, Chamier. Camero. The Keys .delivered to the Jewifh Teachers included the Power of Ordi- nation. There is a Power of Doflrine and Difci- pline.
It's granted by all, that the Presbyters have the Key of Dodrine, or Power to Preach. And that they have the Key of Difcipline, Order, or Jurif- didion alfo, is evident; for Ghrift gave the Keys to- gether, and did not divide 'em. Therefore they who've the Key of Dodrine, have that /. of Jurif- didion, Mat. i6. ip. Ill give to thee the Keys ef the Kiyigdow of Heaven^
Now Chrift did not here ^iv^ one Key to one A- poflie, and both to another. He gives no fingle Key to any Perfon, but Keys : Here is no Diftribu- tion of the Keys into that of Do;5trine> and Or- der; that is, the Power of Preaching is no where given to one Minifter, and Power of Ordaining to another, but the fame Perfon is equally intrufled ■with both thefe Powers.
He that hath the Keys of a Houfe or Caflle de- liver'd to him, has Power to admit or exclude Per- ions as he fees caufe ; except there be a Limitation in his Order, his Po\^er extends to all Perfons with-
ciit cxception^
Christ
lUr. J. OwenV Tka. 53
Christ here does not limit the Power of the Keys to Bifhops ; h' therefore Presbyters may by the vertue of this Power, admit Church-Members into the Houfe of God by Baptifm, why not Church OlFiCers by Ordination ?
Either 'Ordination is an Ad of the clavicular Power, or of fome other Power ? but of no other. — If any other, 'tis cither of a Secular, or Ecclefiaftical Power. Not an Ecclefiaftical Power, for there is no fuch, but the Power of the Keys. Not of a fecular Power, for that belongs n^-to.Minifters as fuch.
•'fi •^i:
G H^A^p? IX.
Orders co'riferci hj thofe in Orders z'did. No di- Ji in [lion between ordinary Jlmding Minijlers ; No Example in the Nerv-Tejlament for [their being Or- dained twice. The Fathers make no dijferenx be- tmen Bifiops and Presbyters i.^ Ordtr^ as Clem. Romanus, Polycarp, Hermas, Pius, J. Martyr, Iren. Clem. Alexandr,* TertuII. Origen, Cy- prian, err. The Schoolmen and Canomfls fubfcribe to this Opinion^ and jo do feme Councils. The Identifjcf BifJjopSy and Presbyters^ has been main* tained h) the Popiflj and Proteflant Church of England, and effeciailj by the great Instruments of our Reformation^ and our Learned Writers a- gainfl Popery, Sara via and Laud Eroachers of the contrary Do^rine. The Old Church of England againft Re-ordaining thofe who were Ordained by Presbyters, Aerius vindicated.
•Arg, IX. I^RDERS confer'd by fuch as are inOr-
V-/ ders, and have the Power of Order
E 3 equal
54- An Ahrid^ent of
equal with Bifliops, are valid. — Now Orders con- confer 'd by Presbyters 4re fuch. AMati that is inOT- dcrsy quoad Freslyieratumi va^y cateris paribus^ confer Orders, it being like. G^£ieration, or Univocal Caufa- tion. Ordinis efl confer re or dines.
If Men of an inferior. Order make the Pope, and a- mong ourfelves; Bifhop^ make Archbifhops, how much more may Minifters of the fame Order give what they have, that is, ^l-^c Order of the J^rie/ihoody as the School- men affe(^ to call it.
Why. may n't Presbyters make Presbyters, Minifter$ ordain Minifters, as Phyficians make Phyflcians? All Ranks of Beings generate their own kind ; but the impotent Order of Presbyters, it feems, muft dk, if the influence of a fuperior Order does not propagate it by a fort of Equivocal Generation. —
The Scripture no where mentions any diftindion of Order and Superiority amongft ftanding Mini- fters of the Gofpel ; neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination. We defire our Epifco- pal Brethren to fhew us from Scripture, that Timothy or T'it:t6, or any other were Ordained twice, firft made Presbyters, and then Bifliops, which is abfo- lutely neceflary, if they be two diftini^ Charaders.
That BiPnops and Presbyters are the fame, has the Confent of the Fathet-s, Schoolmen, Canoniiis, Coun- cils, and the old Church of England.
I. As to the Fathers ; moft that are confiderable unanimoudy affirm the Identity of Bilhops and Pref- bytcrs. 'Tis true, fome of 'em feem to make a dif- ference between 'em, but few or none of 'em fay that they are diftind Orders, much Ids, that they are fo by Divine Right, and many of 'em acknowledge the contrary ; particularly, thofe Authors who wrote next to the Apoftles, and were the likelier to know their Sennments in the Klatter.
Bur before I add particular Teftimonies from the AncientSi let me obferve,
I. That
Mr. J. Owen'^ "Plea. 55
1. That I quote *em only for the Ufe and Satis- fadfon of others, efpecially thofe who teach and take for Doftrine the Traditions of Men; the Scripture is our Rule, and fufficiently proves what is affcrted in thefe Papers, without auy help from Antiquity.
2. Irs true, fome of the Fathers mention Bifhops and Presbyters, but then they don't make *em to be different Jtire Diuino. The Senior or Chief Presbyter was called Bifhop of the Church, who adminifter'd all Ordinances therein, and the Presbyters, by his confent ; in conformity to which Cuflom After-Ages inur'd 'emfclves to write Bifhops, Presbyters and Dea- cons, but none of thofe Writers, that I remember, affirm the difference between Bifhop and Presbyter to be of Divine Inftitution. Befides, I much queftion, whether there be now in being, any fuch Thing as an uncorrupted Piece of the Fathers ^ and if there were, I think, there is little Credit to be given to their Evidence, whofe Judgments were undoubtedly fallible, and whofe Works abound with notorious Corruptions : However \Qt us hear what they fay. I lliall take 'em in the following Order
1 . Clemens Romanus, Coadjutor to the Apoftles, men- tioned Philip. 4. 3. in his Epifde to the Corinthiansy makes Bifhops and Presbyters to be the fame: He who was Contemporary with the Apoftles, was the moft likely to know their Thoughts on that Subjed.
2. Polycarp, Bifhop oF Smyraa, and Difciple of St. John, mentions only Presbyters and Deacons.
3. Hcrmasy fuppofed by fome to be the fame men- tioned Rom. 16. 14. in his Paflor, (a Book admitted by fome Churches as Canonical) makqs but two Or- ders in the Church, Bifhop and Deacon.
4. Pius, the Italian^ Succeflbr to Hyginusy is of the fame Opinion.
Jujltii Martyn, who flourifli'd about the Year 140 mentions two Orders only the €j€3Urt»% a chief Ruler, or Parochial Bifhop or Deacon.
E 4 ^ /-
56 An Ahridgrdcnt of
6. Irenaus Bifhop of Ljoyis and Difciplc o^Polycarp, who died about 202 Years after Chrill:, fpeaks often of the Identity of Epifcopacy and Presbytery, and %h-Jj: Presbyters fucceed the Apoflles.
7. Clemens Alexandrinusy (presbyter of Alexandria, xyho dy'd about, the Year. 2 20.} — mentions Bifhops, Presbyters, and Deacons, yet makes but two Ecclefi- aftical Orders, Bifhops [or Presbyters] and Deacons, refembrd by the Angeh'ck Orders, which are two, according to the Scripture-Account, v:2.y Archangels and Angels,
In another .place he mentions only two Offices in the Churcji." . Strom. 7. p. 700.
8. "lertidliaYhi Presbyter or Bifhop of Canlxigey who dy'd about Ann. 220. tells us the Government of the Church was in the Power of the Presbyters, cah'd pohati Senior es^ try'd and approved Elders.
Origen, who dy'd about the Year 254. a Presbyter and Catechift of Alexandria^ was for the Identity of Bifhops and Presbyters ; and fhews how Criminals - appeared before the Church, and not before any Con- liftorial Court of the BifliOp. Whatever ufc he makes of the Names, he no where aHerts a diflindion, and difference of Order between Bifliops and presbyters.
10. Cyprian, Bifljop of Carthage (no Diocefan, or Ru- ler over rnany Congregations) in time of Liberty, his whole Church met together, to wl]om he adminiflred the Holy Sacrament himfelf. In his time, the People met to chufe their Bifhop.
That the Cypviani<:k Bijhp was no more than a Pa- rochial Bifhop, has been abundantly prpv'd by Dr. Rule, Isix.yamefoni Mr. Boyfe, Mr. Latider. —
11. Fmnilian, Bifhop of C^cfarea in Cappadocia, tells ps> the Church was govern'd by Senior Paflors.
12. Eufibius, Bifliop of Cajdrea in Paleftine, is of the farrie Opinion.
13. Gregory Naz.ianTLen, who died about 385?. afTure? ^|is^ there' "were no Privileges pofleft by Bifiops, but
v/hat
Mr. ]. Owen'. Tlea. 5^
what equally belong'd to PresLjters. This being only an Abridgment ot what has been already advanced and prov'd I thought it needlefs to infert Quotations, or probatory Iliuflrations.
hJondel adds many more of the Fathers, where the Learned may fee their Opinion at one View. Since his time, the Siibjed: has been well cultivated in our own Language, efpecially by the Learned C/arkfon, RuL'i Sttlliyigfiect in his Irenkumy Jamefouy T'ong, Lauder^ Boyfe, in his clear Account of the ancient Epifcopacy.
IL The Judgment of the School-rnen is conformable to thdit oi jerom. They affirm, that he who had Power to preach and adminiiler the Sacraments, had Power to govern the Churches where they laboured.
Peter Lombardy the Mafter of the Sentences, and Bifliop of Paris, who flourifhed in the Xllth Age, faith, that ainong the Ancients, Bifhops and Presbyters were the fame. Apid 'vereres iidem Efifcopi iiX Presby- terifuerunt. Lib. 4. difl.2^.
Bonaventurcj who liv'd A. D. 1252. is of the fame Judgment.
With whom agree Durand. Dominic. SotOy Aureolus, who all comment upon Lombard's Text.
Aquiriasy born A. D. 1224. and who refin'd the Scholaftick Di'/inity, fays, the Gofpel only rnenti- ons two Ecclefiaflical Orders, Presbyters and Deacons. Jn DvBriua Chrifti & A^oflolorumy mn fit Mentio nifi de Presbyteris & Diaconibus. Supplem. quafl. 37. Artie, i.f. 2/
III. To this Opinion fome Cano^iifis fubfcribe.
Gratiany who liv*d in theXHth Cent, affirrns, there were but two Orders in the Church, viz.. Presbyter'^ and Deacons. Sacros or dines dicimus Di aeon at urn & Pres^ byteratum. Difi* do.
Johannes Semeca,. in his Glofs on the Canon Law, aflerts the Identity of Bifiiops and Presbyters-— In Eccle/ia primitiur cominune erat cfficium Epifcoporinn & Sacerdotum. Difl. 59. This Opinion being enroll'd in the Canon Law, was publickly taught by the School- inen and others. IV,
58 Ayi Abridgment of
IV. Some Councils alfo atteft to this Truth. The Council of Aix-le-Chappel owns the Identity
of Bifhops and Presbyters. Can^ 8.
To the fame purpofe fpeaks the Council of Sevily held in the Year 619- ' Let the Presbyters know. That
* the Power of Ordination, is forbidden 'em by virtue
* of the Ecclefiaftical Laws, becaufe they had not the ^ fupreme Degree of the Sacerdotal Dignity, which
* by the Authority of the Canons is appropriated to « Bi&ops only. Can, 7.
In the Councils of Conflance and Bafil (in thcXVth Century) it was concluded, That Presbyters fhou*d have decifive Suffrages in Councils, as well as Bi- fhops, becaufe by the Divine Law BiftiQps were no more than Presbyters. ABs 15. 23.
In the Year 1434. King Henry fcnt 14 Ambaffadors to the Council at JBafil, among whom were five Bi- fhops, who were impower'd to debate, and conclude Matters that concerned the Orthodox Faith. — Ccn- cludendi — da hue qu^ Ftdei Orthcdoxa fulcmentum — . See the CommifTion.
Even the Council of Trent, which begun in the Year 1545. does not exprefly determine Bifhops to be a Superior Order to Presbyters, tho the Spaniards urgd it with fome Warmth, and the Honour of the Pope depended upon it.
Three Patriarchs, fix Archbifhops, and tkv^n Bifhops didy on behalf of themfelves and the major part of the AlTembly, move that it might not be put into the Canon, That the Superiority is de Jure Pivim. Vid, Fa. Paul.
V. The Doftrine of the Identity of Bifhops and presbyters has been maintained alfo by the Church of England^ both Popifli and Proteftant.
I. The Judgment of the Church of England in the Times of Popery we have in the Canons of Effrick^ A, D. 990. to Bifhop tVolfin, where Bifhop and Pref- byter are declared to be of the iame Order. Spelm. Com. Vol. I . /'. 5 7^. eundem tenem ordinem. An-
Mr. J. OwenV Tlea. 59
Anfelm Archbifhop of Canterhuryt who died in the Year 1109. and was the mod Learned Man of that Age, fays, That by the Apoflolick Inftitution all Pre/- tyters are B'jhops. Enar. ad Phil.
The Antient Confellbrs and Martyrs, who fludied the Truth without Partiality, are of the fame Opi- nion.
John Wicklify Dodor of Divinity in Oxfoni, and Parfon of Luttevworth in Limoln-Jhire, in Edward III. and Richard the Sccond*s Time, did affirm. That in the Apoltles Days there were only two Orders, viz.. Priefts and Deacons. Catal. T'eft. Fuller, I'ho, Wuldenfu. So does the godly Martyr Mr. Bradford.
John Lambert a. holy Martyr faith, That according to Scripture and the Antient Do(5lors, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bifhops and Deacons.
"findal and Bcurnes were of the fame Judgment, Thefe were all Men of great Learning and Integrity, and among other Truths, feai'd this with their Blood. ABs and Mon. Healing Attemft.
II. The Proteilant Church of England was of the fame Mind. The Bifhops and other famous Lights of ity look'd upon Diocefan Epifcopacy as a human In- vention. This is evident by Publick Papers printed by Authority, as well as by the Writings of particu^ lar Perfons.
I. About the Year 1538. was publifh'd by Autho- rity, A Declaration ?nade of the FunSiions and Divine Jnflitution of Bifiops and Priefis, fubfcrib'd by T'homc^ Cromwel, Earl of Ejfex, and Lord Vicegerent in Ec- clefiaflical Affairs, the Archbi/hops of Canterbury and Torky 1 1 BiJhopSy and many other Doctors and Civilians^ by whom 'tis thus refolv'd,
— ^ That in the New Teftament there is no men^
* tion made of any Degrees or Dill:in(5tions in Orders,
* but only of Deacons or Miniflers, and of Priefls^r J^.Biftops. See Hifl. of Refor?n, Addenda. P. i. /. 321.
^2. The
6b An Ahridoment .of
■* '2. The next, is the Book caU'd, T'he Erudition of a '-Chriftinn Man, made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial SynodyAnmi^^y. fet forth by the King and Parliament, and commanded to be preach'd to the 'whole Kingdom, which mentions but two Orders ; Bijhops (or Presbyters)' and Deacom.
This was the common and current Opinion of the -great Inftruments of our Reformation, in the Reigns of King Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Q^ctn Eliz.al7etlj. ■— The late BiHiop o£ PForcefier in his Irenicum, tells US of a Manufcript fetting forth the Judgment of Archbifhop Cranmer,
That BijhoPs and Priefls v:ere one Ojfice in the begin" >S77ig of- Chy'ifl's Religion, pag. 592.
In the fame Manufcript it appears. That the Bifhop oiSt. Afi^h, I'hirlhy, Redman, Cox, all imploy'd in that Convention, were of the fame Opinion with the Archbifhop, That at firft Bifhops and Presbyters were the fame : Cox and .Redman exprefly cite the Judg- ment of Jerom with Approbation.- Iren. p. 595.
Ohj. Mr. Gips fays. The Argument grounded on the Manufcript belongs not to the Time when the Church of Ew^/^iwi was Proteftant, but Popifh ; for the Qnefl ions were iriot put hy Edward V\. but by Henry Vill. ' ;
Anfw. That the' Manufcript was iw EdwardVYs DayS:, is evident from five Reafons.
1. jyr. Still ingfieet, who had it in his PofleHion, af- firms the fame : And i^ there were no other Argu^ mcnt, I prefume the Doctor's Veracity will not be .calfd into queftiori. : - "'^
2. The firfl Set of Queflions in it is about the Mafs, the Inflitution, Receiving, Nature, Celebra- tion, Language in which it ought to be us'd. Now It docs not appear that King Henry Will, ^vti fcrupled thc-Mafs, &c.
' ^1-This Manufcript contains the Debates in order to Reformation, which belongs to Edward Vi'sTime. - Thf.
Mr.]. Owen's Tka. 6i
4. The Petitions mention d and ^nfwer'd therein, were, 'tis faid, drawn up by the Clergy .in Cgnvocatioii in K. Henry VllVs Time, of mod famous memoryy whicli. iirtplies, he was d^ad. The fecond is addreft toCran?ney, to defire him to be a Mean to the King's Majefty and the Lord Protedor's Grace ; which makes it plain, the King then reigning was a Minor,
^. The Afl'cmbly was held at IVindfor^ as is agreed, but that very Afl'embly was appointed to fit there by King Edward VL as appco^rs in Fox, Ad A. D. 1547. £.1262,
'^■/The Learned Bifhop concludes his Difcourfe of Archbifhop Oanmer thus -, ' We fee by the Teftimony ',, chiefly of him who was inflnimental in our Refpr- ^ mation, that he own'd not Epifcopacy as a diftinft
* Order from Presbytery, jof Divine Right ; but only
* as a prudent Conditution of the Civil Magiftra^e.
Il;id.
The fame Archbifhop Cranmer was the firfl of 4^, who in the Time of King Henry VIIL afErm'd, That the Difference between Bifhops and Presbyters was a Device of the Antient Fathers, and not mentioned in Scripture. Yid. Bifiofs Book in Foxs Martyrolo^'..
Our Learned Writers againft Popery own the Va- lidity of Ordination by Presbyters.
Bishop "Jevcel proves againil Harding-, That Aerius cou'd not be accounted a Heretick for holding, that Bifhops and Presbyters are all one ^U're Divino.
Dr. Bridges alfo Dean of Salisbury^ afterward Bifhop of Oxford, clears Aerius from the Charge of Herefy in this Matter ; and in his Reply to Stapleton^ fays, There is no difference between a Ptiefl and a Bijhcf, nor was there any in the Primitive Times.
The fame is afErm'd by Bifhop Morton in his Catho-' lick Appeal, and by Bifliop Bilfon againft Seminaries.
Dr. Whitaker, Regius Profellbr of Divinity in Cam- Iridge, Dr. Fulky Dean Norccl, Dr. Stillingfieet, and others, were of the fame Opinion. Til conclude this
{ Head
6i An Abridgment of
Head with what the Bifhop of Salisbury faith in his Vindication of the Church of Scotlandy in thefc words, viz.,
I acknowledge Sifiop and Presbyter to be one and the fdme
Offic€.
Saravia and Laud were fome of the firft who broach'd this Notion of the ^us Divinum^ of Dioce- fan Epifcopacy.
Toward the latter end of Queen EU^uibeth's Reign, Hadrian Saravia, once a Pa'ftor to a Reformed Church in the Netherlands, but according to Marejim, rcjeded by em, as an Enemy both to their Church and State. And no wonder, he was not better look'd upon by other Reformed Churches fince he made, not only Bifhops, but Archbifhops Metropolitans, yea, and Patriarchs, to be of Divine Right ; and over all thefe he places the Pope as the Supreme in Order and Honour. Mares. Exam. I'heol. q. i.
Dr. Laud, in a Difputation for his Degrees, aflerr*^ ing the Superiority of Bifhops, wa^ publickly checkc by Dr. Holland, the King's Profeflbr of Divinity in Oxon, telling him. He was a Schifmatick, and went about to make a Divifion between the EngUJh and o- ther Reformed Churches.
Crejfy, who apoftatiz'd to the Romijh Church, con- ceives, that the Reafon why Epifcopacy took no firm rooting in England before Laud's Time, was becaufe the Succeilion and Authority of Bifliops was never confidently and generally taught there to be of Divine Right.
Since then, care has been taken to oblige all Con- forming Miniflers to fubfcribe, I'hat Epijcopacy is a difliyiB Order, and manifefi in God's Word that it is Jo ; which goes beyond the "Trident ine Determination.
The Point of the Re-ordination of Miniflers that were ordain'd by Presbyters only, began to be urg'd in Archbifhop Laud's Time, through whofe Influence good Bifhop Hall ventured to Re-ordain Mr. John
* Dun,
Mr.]. Owen's Tlea, 6?
Dury, but from the Beginning it was not fo : The Old Church of England did not require Re-ordination of thofe Ordain'd by Presbyters, as is now done, as^will appear from the enfuing Inftances.
In King Edwfird the Vl'th Time Peter Martyvy Mar^ tin Bucer^ and P. Fagiw were, by virtue of their Pref- byterian Ordination, prefer'd in the Church of Eng-* land, Archbilhop Cranmer was fo far from requiring their Re-ordination by Bilhops, that he nev^er cenfur*d Martin Bticer for Writing, that mere Presbyters might ordain. Vid. Buc, Script, Angl. p, 154.
John a Lafco, a noble Polonian, with his Congrega-* tion of Presbyterial Germans was fettl'd in England (by Edward the VVs Patent) he to be Super'Intendant, and 4 other Minifters with him : And tho that Pref- byterian Divine wrote againft fome Orders of the Englifi Church,- yet, with others, he was call'd to re- form our Ecclefiaftical Laws. Burnet's Hift. p. 154,
In Queen EUz/iheth's Reign, Ordination by PreA by ters was publickly allowed ; as appears by the Sta-* tute of Reformation, 13 EUt:.. cap. 11, Purfuant to this, feveral Presbyterian Minifters had Preferment in the Church in her Time, without Re-ordination ; e. g.
Mr. William Whittingham^ Head of the Non-Con- formifts at Frankfordy upon his return to England, was made Dean of Durham about the Year 1563, tho Ordain'd by Presbyters onJy.
Mr. 'Traverfey ordain'd by a Presbytery beyond Sea, was feven Years Ledurer in the T'empky and had the Bifhop of London's Letter for it.
The Presbyterian French Church in T^readneedle" flreet, London, was allow'd by the Queen, as alfo the Dutch Church.
Father John Fox (fo the Queen was wont to call that great Man) who tho a profefs'd Non-conformifl to the Ceremonies, yet continu'd Prebend of Salisbury till he died.
Dr. Laiii"
<$4- . ^^^ Ahridgnknt oj
Dr. Lawrence Humfrey^ a Non-ftibfcriber to the im- pofed Terms of Communion, was remarkably inti- mate with Dr. Jewel and other Bifnops, and kept his Deanry of Wifiche/ier, and his Place' of Regius Pro- fejfor of Divinity in OxforJ, as Jong as*!ie liv'd.
1t^ King James the I. his time, the like allowance was made mito Minifters ordain'd by Presbyters.
The famous Mr. John Carnero who was Presbyte- rivally ordain'd in France, came hither 1621. and fet up a Divinity Ledure in a private Houfe at London, by the PermifTion of King James the Firft, and a Li- eenfe from the then Biihop of London.
In the Year 1609, before the Confecration of the three Scottifli Bifhops at London ; Andrews Bifhop of Ely faid, 'They rnuft be firft Ordain d, as having receivd no Ordination by a Eijhop. To which Archbi(hop\B^^^- €Yoft anfwered, that thereof there was no necejjity ; feeing where Bijhops cou'd not be had,, the Ordination given by Presbyters muft be efleemed lawful, otherwife it might be doubted, if there was ^ny lawful Vocation in moft of the Reformed Churches ; (he might have faid in any of em) in which the Bifhop of Ely ac- quiefced. Spotfw. Hifl. lib. wiu p. $14- . Thus we fee the Judgment and Pradice of the good old Church of England.
To which Mr. Gips objects, the Form of Ordina- tion drawn up in Edward VI's time, which runs thus
' That 'tis evident unto all Men diligently read- ^ ing the Holy Scriptures, and Antient Fathers, that ' from the Apoftles time there have been thefe Or- * ders of Minifters in ChriR's Church, Billiops, Priefts; ^ and Deacons.
Anfwer. i. The Preface does not diilinguifh, be^^ tween Deacons and Presbyters, for Deacons are fent to Baptize and Preach, and fo is the Prieft, and the Gofpel then read is Mat. 28. 20.
z. In the Form of Ordination,, the fame Duties are injoyn'd Priefts and Bifhops. The ruling Power is equally committed to 'em. Take
Mr,]. Owen's Tlea. 6^
'tnXJS, when tiie Pried is ordain'd, the Bifhop reads ABs 20. 28*. * Take heed therefore unto yourfelves,
* and to all the Flock, among whom the Holy Ghoft ^ has made you Overfeer^, [Bifhops, To the Greek'] to
* rule the Congregation of God. vid. Form. Nay more, when a Bifiiop ordains Presbyters, he makes cm promife, * That they will give their faithful
* diligence always, to minifter the Difcipline of Chrift^
* as the Lord has commanded, ibid.
* Here Presbyters are impower'd to minifler Di- fcipline or govern the Church, which fuppofes 'em to be the fame with Bifhops. The third Chapter of the fiift Epift. to T'imothy about Bifhops, is read at the Ordination of Priefts as well as Deacons. iV. B. Bifhops and Archbifhops are confecrated by a Mandate from the Crown, but not Priefts.
r -3. This Preface that fpeaks of three Orders^ does not affirm Bijhops and Priefts to be jure Divino, a 4iflinEi Order y or eflential to a Church, which is the Matter in debate. That there were Bifhops, Presby- ters and Deacons in the Primitive Church no body denies ; but then it fliou'd be confider'd, that in the Language of thofe early Fatliers, Bifhops and Presby- ters were the fame, and that Epifcopacy was a pru- dential Conflitution only ,• and the Bifhop pimus in- ter pares. Befides, the Controverfie is not about Bi- fhops, as fuch, who at firil: were only Parochial Re- :dors, (as appears even from Ignatius) but Prelatical lor Diocefan Bifhops, who affume to themfeives a Pow- er, no where that 1 can find clearly warranted by ithe New Tellament, or authentick Antiquity. Nor iis it afcrib'd to em in the Preface as dilHnct from I Presbyters.
I Ln a Word, the Englifh Church in the times of jKing Edward VL Q^ieen Eliz,. and King James I, jaded from true Catholick Principles that comprehend- jed the Presbyterian Ordinations of Foreign Reform- ed Churches, affercing the Identity of BifhopS and
F PreP^
66 An Abridgment of
Presbyters upon all Occafions, as well publick as private, as appears by the forecited Trafts. But you'll fay,
Ohj. Aerius is branded for an Heretick by Auftin and Efiphanim for affirming Bilhops and Presbyters to be the fame. Bp. Halts Div. R. of Epifc. fan I. f . ^4. Mr. Gips advances the fame Objection, and fays, St. Aufiin places this Error of his in the front. I0 this I anfwer,
1. The great Managers of this Objedion are tha Papifts, from whom fome defenders of Prelacy bor- row k^
2. Several of our learned Writers againft Popery have juftified him againft the Charge of Herefie, for holding the Equality of Bifhops and Presbyters. Chemnit. Exam. con. bid. par. 4.
5. As to Epiphanius we have no great reafon to credit what he faid in this matter, fince he was ex- tremely credulous in what favour'd his own Caufe, and often miftaken in Hiftorical Relations.
The Controveriie with Aerius he managed with great paffion and partiality ; that this was the Cha- rader of the Man, \s attefled by Melchor Canus and Baron, in his Annalsy and by the Learned Cafaubouy who fays, * I'hat he did mod eafily believe every filly
* and ground lefs Report. Befides, how comes £/>/-
* phanius to be the firft Man who charges him with
* it 'y and that neither Socrates ^ Soz,omeny 'theodoret, nor
* Evagriusy before whofe time he liv*d, £hou'd cenfure
* him for it ?
4. Auftin and others, who in their Catalogue of Herefies mention Aerius, refer to Epiphanius as their Author. But as to St. Auftin ; fome of the Learned queftion whether he be the Author of that Book de Herefibus that goes under his Name ; fo 'tis not pro- bable that he had heard of Epiphanius's Books >(9^rii aiPesei^n, and much lefs read it, fince fome think they were not then Tranflated, and that *tis certain
that
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlea. ' 67
that Auflin did not underfland 'em in the Original.
Add to this as a further Evidence, that in that Trad there is an Account of the Nefiorian and Eu-- tychian Herefies, which were not broach'd till after St. Auflin s Death. Vid Jamefons Nazjan. Querela. 25.
HAP.
X.
Ordination hy Preshpers valid in the Primitive Church. Presbyters Ordained in Alexandria for about 200 Tears^ proved out of Jerom, and Euty* chius. Jbbot Daniel Ordained bj a Presbjtef, Presbyterian Ordination in Bavaria ; allowed in the Council of Nice, by Leo the Great, PraBifed in Scythia; allowed of in Hilary'^ time\ and at Rome the Chorepifcopi, who were Presbyter s^ Or^ dained. Ordination by Presb}ters in the Scots Churchy in the beginning of Chriflianity. The Scots Chri'^ fiianized before _ Pope Celeftine'i time, and with the Britains received the Chriflian Religion direff* iy from Afia. 'The Old Church of Ireland go*
. verr!d by Presbyters. The Waldenfes, Bohemi- ans, and Lollards Ordinations were by Presbyters, fo were thofe of Taprobane.
-^nS- X. /n^RDINATION by meer Presbyters ^^ was valid in the Primitive Church and after, therefore 'tis valid now. This will be made evident by a Train of Inftances.
I. The Presbyters of ^/fx^z«^r/^? made their Bi (hops for almoft two Hundred Years together. Thus, "Je- rom and Euty chius fpeak.
St. Jerom affirms, that the Alexandrian Presbyters cleded their Bifhop from among themfelves; having
F a nam'd
68 ♦ An Abridgment oj
nam'd him a Bifhop, they plac'd him in a higher De- gree. Presbyteri fe7yi]jeY uniim ex fe eleBum in excel/tore gradu collocatum^ Epjcopum nominahant. adEvagr. Thus, the Bifhop then was conftituted by the Eledion and Nomination of the Presbyters : Neither do we read of any other Confecration that he had.
Polodore Virgih Archdeacon of JVellsy confefles, that antiently in the making of a Bifliop there were no Ce- remonies us'd, but the People afiembled to give their Teftimony and Suffrage in his Eledionj Minifters and People pray'd, and Presbyters gave Impofition of Hands : and this was a Cuftomthat continu'd long after. OUm faBum videtur iit in confecrando Epifcopo ml amplms Ceremoniarum ejjet niji ut multittido precaretuYy & Preshyteri manus imponerent.
The Teftimony of Jerom is feconded by Eutychim Patriarch of Alexandria, who out of the Records of that Churchj in his Arabick Originals thereof, faith,
Mark the Evangelift appointed Hananias Patriarch of Alexandria, and twelve co-affiflant Presbyters ; to the end that when the Patriarch/hip was vacant, the Presbyters fioud chufe one cf their own Number, lay their Hands on his Head, blejs him, and create him their Patriarch ; and then eleB fome Eminent Perfon, and make him Presbyter tih bis room w/.u was made Patria7ch, that fo there fioud be always 1 1 Presbyters. Eutych, Origin. Alexandria, tran- flated by Selden p. 29. 30.
Here's a full proof that the Alexandrian Presbyters did chufe and create -their own Patriarchs or Bijhops by Impofition of Hands and Benedidion, without any other Confecration ; which CuPtom continued foir feveral Ages.
Mr. dps owns, that the Eleven Presbyters laid their Hands ■ on the B^fiop (EleB) and blejfed and created him Patriarch. This Rule, adds he, was made by Mark himfelf. If fo, then Presbyters have Power of Ordi- nation ; and from hence it appears, that all the Or- dination the Alexandrian Bifhops had, was by Pref- bytcrs. II.
Mr. J. Owen'j Tlea. 69
II. About the Year ^90. One Abbot Daniel (infe- rior to none in the Defcrt of Scetis bordering on E-^ gyft) was ordained a Presbyter by Pap/mntiusy a PreP byter. Johan. Caffianus.
HiRn's an uncontcftible Inftance of Presbyters Ordaininj^, which wcno where read was pronounced null by 'fheophilusy then Bifliop of Alexandriay or any other of that time.
Blondel out of Caffianus adds, that this Fad was in the Year 35^0, when the Egyptian Church enjoy 'd a pro- found Peace, and a Bifnop at the Helm of it, and the Government of that Church was improved in a manner into a fecular Dominion. If in thefe Cir- cumftances, a Presbyter might ordain Presbyters, how much more, before the ancient Simph'city of the Gofpel was fnackled with novel Conftitutions. f. 358. fi in fiimma.
HI. In the Year 452 Leo the Great, being confulted by Rufiicus NarbonenCis about fome Presbyters that took upon 'em to ordain as Bifhops, refolves the Cafe thus, That if the Ordination were peiform'd by. confent of the Bifliop, it may be look'd upon as valid, and rhefe Presbyters remain in their Oifice in the Church. »S/— - ordinatio eorum cum coyifenfu— prafidentiuntf faBa efly fotefi rata habere -- Ep. 92. c. i.
So that by the after Confent of the true Bifliops, thofe Presbyters thus ordain'd were look'd on as law- ful Presbyters, which cou'd not be, unlefs their Or- dainers had an inherent Power of Ordination, which was only reftrain'd by the Lav/s of the Church. For if they've no Power of Ordination, 'tis impolTible they fhould confer any fuch by their Ordination.
IV. The Power of Ordination was in the Hands of the captive Presbyters under the Scythians beyond Ifter for about 70 Years, viz>. from Ann. Do?n. 260% the Year of their Captivity under GuUenusy to the Year 3^17, under Confiantine, when Urphilas was crea- ted Bifhop by Eufebms. Pliiloflorg. Itb. i- c- 5- in Blond. _
F 3 Thb
no An Ahridgment of
The Scythians^ or Gothsy who were converted under Vakns^ making an Irruption into the Roman Empire^ among other Places, invaded Galatia or Cappadociuy brought wirh them Home a great Number of Cap- tives, among whom were fome of the Clergy. But the Hiftorian fays, they had no Bifliops before Urphi^ las. Primus eorum Epijcopus conftittitus. Socrates affirms. That Vrphilas was ordained Bifhop of the Goths.
V. The Presbyters of Bavaria ordain'd Minifters for about 200 Years ; till fuch time that one Vivik was impos'd upon them for their Bifiiop by Pope Za- charyy about the Year 740.
It's certain, that when Bonifacms Mcgunt (alias Wi" niferd, or Wilfred) vifited them, he found no Bi/hops HI the whole Province, but this Vivilo, tho the Pro- vince be fo large that one third Part of it now, 'viz.. the Diftricl of Saltslurg, has an ArMi/hop, who is the moft powerful Prelate, for Revenue and Jurifdidion, of any in Germany. Heylins Cofrn. I. 2. p. 368.
The Boiariansy who were the ancient Inhabitants of this Province, were govern'd by their Presbyters, without Bifhops, and that probabJy for about 200 Years. More of this when I come to confider the
fj/al^^^f'^-
VI. The Council of Nice, in their Epiftle to the Alexandrian Churchy decreed thus concerning the Pref- byters ordain'd there by Meletius, r»$ 5 Z'^e/lt StiS ^ —
But as for thofe, who by the Grace of God and your Prayers y have been found in no Schifm, but have ever re-^ manid Immaculate in the CathoUck Churchy it pleas d the Holy Synod that they jhiuld have Power to ordain, and give fip the Names of fih:h as were worthy to be the Clergy ; and in fiort, to do all things according to the Ecclejiaftical Law and SanEhon — Socrat. lib. i . cap. p.
Iv the meaning be, that thefe Presbyters fhall or- dain and govern" with the Bifhops, but not without 'em : Yis granted, for the Decree refers to an Eccle- ii^ttks} Conflitution, reftraining the Pqwer pf Presby^
t?rs.
Mr. J. Owen'i Tlea. j i
ters, fo that it fhould not be exerted, but with the Bi/hop.
But this fhows, that Ordination belongs to the Presbyter's Office, and therefore can be no Nullity, when 'tis done by 'em alQ,ne, tho an Irregularity, as to the Canons.
Mr. Gips owns, ' That the Decree of the Synod of
• Nice hinders not, but that it might have been a Di- ^ vine Inftitution that Presbyters ordain and govern,
* only with and under Bifhops. 7'em. Nov. Con. Part IL p. 5P.
Hfre he iiUows Presbyters a Power to ordain; and 'tis this Intrinfick Power we plead for, which was deriv'd to 'em by Apoftolical Conflitution, and taken from 'cm by Ecclefiafticai Canons and Cuftom.
Those who had an inherent Power to ordain, were often Canonically reftrain'd.
But this condemns Schifmatical Ordinations. No, for Schifm as fuch, can't make Ordination null, tho it implies an Irregularity. Elfe the Ordinations of the Schifmatical, nay more Heretical Church of Rome were null, which are counted valid in the Church of England.
VII, In ///7m'/s Time, which was about the Year ^^Oy Bifhops and Presbyters were the fame ,• tho' there has been no Book printed under that Name of this Hi-* lary^ Deacon of the Church of Romey yet the Learned have attributed to him, the Commentary upon the Epiftles of St. Pauly which bears the Name of St. Am-' brofey and the Queftions upon the Old and New Tefta- ment, which are at the End of the fourth Tome of St. Auflin. Now from thefe Works it appears,
1. That the Ordination in Hilarys Time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apoftles. Non per omnia conveniunt.
2. At firft Presbyters and Bifhops were of the fam^ Order and Office, and had but one Ordination. Epifcopi & Preshyteri una Ordinatio eft. The Bifhop
F 4 then
7 2 An Ahridgment of
then was. but Primus Sacerdos^ and not of a Superior Order, adds he. Peter is call'd vr^oir^ pimu.u Mat, JO. 2. and yet Proteftants hold all the Apoftks to be equal. Comment, in Eph.^. & in Tim. 3. Ji dejk Epif- coj)us, Cpnfecrat. Presbyter,
5. Spdlatenjis infers from him. That at fiift when a. Bishop diQdy there was not (o much as anEledion of him who was to fucceed, much lefs any new Ordi- nation ; but the eldeft Presbyter came into the room of the deceafed BifLop. De Repub. Eccl. I. ^. c. ^.
4. Bishops at the Beginning, were merely the firft Presbyters, and had only Precedency, but no Power or Jurifdidion by Divine Right over the reft.
The ddcil Presbyters fucceeded into the Epifcor pacy, and fo became the -sT^sVey?, thePrefident of the; Presbytery ; and this Cuflom continued till fome In- conveniences oblig'd 'em to prefer Men by their Merit, and not Order or Seniority.
5. After this change, the Presbyters chofe and ^lade their Bifhops. In ttie Abfence of the Bifhop they might do thefe things, which Cuflom had ap-? propriated to the Biihops. Speaking of Egypt, he fays, Presbyteri confignant, ji pr^fens non fit Epijcopm.
Cetifignare is feme .Ad of Prerogative that the Bi- ihops challenged to themfelves> which yet in their Abfence, the Presbyters might perform The Word is taken for Confecrare in feveral Authors. Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr.Ep. 2.
W\ll. Pelagim, the firfl Bifliop of Rome, was or- ^ain'd by yo/m Bifliop of Perufia , Bonus, BifJhop of Floreijce, and Andreas Presbyter de Hofiia : Where- as by the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council, three JBifliops are abfolutely required for the Ordination of a Bifhop.
Either then, Pelagius was no canonical Bi/hop, and fo the SuccefUpn Is interrupted in the Church of Rome^ and corifequently the EngUJh Bi/liops have no canoni- cal Succefiion. • 7^' Or,
Mr. ]. OwenV Tlca. 75
Ok, elfe a Presbyter has the fame Tntrinfical Power of Ordination with a Bifhop, but only 'tis reftraind by Ecclcfiaftical Laws.
IX. The Chorepifcopi (or Country-Bifhops) ordain'd Presbyters till they were reftrain'd by a Canon in the Council of Antiocb, A. D. 344. Now thefe Chorepif- copi were either real Bifliops or not.
1. If they were> then Bifhops were made not only in Cities, but in Country Villages. And fo here's an Inftance of Bifhops without Subjed-Presbyters.
2. Bur ii they were not Bifhops, it will undeniably follow, that Presbyters did ordain then without Bi- fhops, and their Ordination was valid till they were limited and reftrained by the Canons.
Mr. Gips2ind others have endeavoured to make them all Bifhops, but without evident Proof. That thefe Chorepifcopi were Presbyters, carries with it the greateft Probability, if we confider thefe things.
1. That this was the Opinion of the Ancients. The fecond Council of Hifpalisj held about the Year 615?, makes the Chorepifcopi and Presbyters to be the fame. Juxta Camne?n uiium funty Can 7. And adds, that the reafon why fome things, as Cohfecration — were forbidden to Presbyters, was becaufe they have not the Supreme Degree of the Sacerdotal Dignity ; which by the Authority of the Canons (it does not fay of Scripture) is appropriated to Bifliops on\y. Ibid.
2. That they were Presbyters, appears from the Reft rain ts laid upon theniy and the Decrees made a- gainft them.
They were not to officiate in the City Churches, if the Bifhop or his Pre^^byters were prefent. Coiu Neocafar, Can. 13.
The Council o( Ancyra, held. about the Year. 514, forbids thefe Chorepifcopal Miniflers to ordain Priefts and Deacons. According to the Greek Text, the Canon runs thus ; ' 'Tis not lawful for Suffragan Bi- [ fcops (l^, Chorepifcopi) to ordain Priefts or Deacons,
* nor
74 ^^^ Abridgment of
* nor for the City-Presbyters, in another Parifh, with-
* out the Permiflion of their Bifhop.
It's fupDos'd here, Presbyters had Power to ordain^ but are reftrain'd by the Canon.
The Laodicean Council, held about the Year 3^4, orders. That no Bifhops muft be plac'd in Towns or Villages, but Vifitors, who were to b€ fubjed to the City Bifhops. Can. 57.
Now, if thefe were real Bifhops, how come they to be thus deprived of their Epifcopal Rights ? And I would fain know, what Power had the City Bifhops to ered the Vijotores inftead of the Chorefifcofi ? I can't account for it, unlefs it was for the Honour of the City Bifhops to have more extenfive Diocefles ; left the Multiplication of Bifhops fhould bring the Name into Contempt. Ne vilefcat nomen Eplfcopi.
Their ordaining, as Presbyters, was that which mov'd Pope Damafus's Indignation againfl them, that they being but Presbyters, fhould prefume to exercife the Epifcopal Office. Ef. 5. DamaJ. obHt. 385.
For this reafon it was, that Leo the Greaty in an- fwer to the Queftion mov'd by Charles the Great, con- demned them to Banifhment ; as may be feen in the feled Capitula. EccleJ, of the Emperor. Tho' the French Clergy mitigated the Rigor of the Sentence, yet concur'd tvith him, to injoyn them to meddle no more with the Epifcopal Miniftry.
Damafus fays they were Presbyters, becaufe they were inftituted according to the Form of the LXX Difciples, who were never veiled with the Jura Efifco" plia, the Epifcopal Rights.
And yet Pope Nicholas I. fays. Their Ordination is valid, being fuch as the LXX, fent out by our Lord, who were veiled with the Epifcopal Preroga- tives. Thefe Papal Determinations, tho different, a- gree in this. That the Chorepifcofi exercised Epifcopal Authority.
3. That they were but Presbyters, appears further, * ^ becaufe
Mr. J. OwenVP/^^. y5
becaiire their Ordination was perform'd by one Bi-» (hop only ; whereas, according to the Canon, three Bifhops were to joyn in the Ordination of a Bifhop.
X. The Scots Churches were govern'd by Presbyters, without Bifhops, for above 200 Years, and therefore had no Ordination but by Presbyters. This is tefti^ ficd by their Hiflorians, whofe Fidelity we have no more reafon to quellion, than that of their Neigh- bours.
Tll begin with John Major, who fays. That the Scots were inftruded by Monks and Presbyters at firft, ' without Bifhops. Sine Epifcopis — deGefl. Scot. I. i.e. 2. I This J. Major was born at Haddington in Scotland, / educated at Cambridge, and commenced Dodor in Di- vinity at Parisy among the Sorbonijis.
Bishop Lefley commends him for preferring Iruth before Eloquence, Veritatis ubique quam Eloquentia jiu- diojior. Hifi. Sect. lib. p. p. 414.
But lead what Major faith fhould be interpreted of. their Converfion, John Fordon is lexprefs, That before j the coming of Palladim, they were only govern'd by . their Culdeesy as they call'd their Presbyters: Andf juflifies this Cuflom as moft agreeable to the Primi- tive Church, Ritum fequentes Reel. Primitive, Saotichron. ' lib. 3. c. 8.
Bishop vpoer cites this lafl Quotation with Appro- I bation, and confirms Fordon s Teflimony out of Job. ' Semeca, whofe words are ; In Primitiya Ecdejid Com^ \ mune erat Officium Epifcoporum & Sacerdotum. In Glojf. t Decret. difl. 93.
HeBor Boethim, a famous Scots Hiftorian, is of the fame Opinion ; and obferves, how the People chofe their Superintendants out of the Culdeesy much after the Manner of the Alexandrian Eleftions.
He was Contemporary with Erafmus^ and fludied with him at Paris, and is mentioned with Honour by Leland, Vojjiusy Bellarmin — This Ihyrt Ac(;ouat of thefe Authpfs may, in fome
roeafur?>
76 An Ahridgment of
meafure, skreen them from the virulent Tongues of thofe, who to lelTen their Teftimony, afperfe their Chara(5ler, as Mr. Gips does.
Objecl. To elude thefe Teflimonies, fomc deny that there was any Converfion of the ancient Inhabitants of Scotlandy before Palladius's Time, who was fent thi- ther by Pope Cehfliney A. D. 430 — The South PiBs were not converted till A. D. 432, the North PiEls in the Year 560.
In anfwer to this, I'll prove they were chriftianiz'd before Palladhus Time ; and then produce an Inftance of Ordination by a Presbyter there.
L That they were Chriftians before Pope Celeflines Time, is evident from the enfuing Confiderations -, 'tis agreed, that
1. Pelagius the Deacon was fent thither by Celeftine to oppofe the Pelagian Herefy^ which fuppofes them to be Chriftians : Becaufe Pelagiamfm is a Corruption of the Chriftian Dodrine. We muft conclude Chiiftia- nity to be planted there for fome time, before it was tainted with fo great an Error.
2. Bishop Covj^er affirms, the Converfion of North- Britain to be at lead as early as that of the South. Out of- Dorothcus and Nicephorus he proves, that Si- mon Zelotes preach'd the Gofpel in Britain, where he was martyr'd, about A. D. 44.
Out of Balaus, Fleming he proves. That j^^
feph of Arimathea came into ^m^/;2 about the Year 35. Out of "Theodoret, he fays. That Paul, after his Deli- verance under Nero, came into this I/land. Cent. i. lik r. c. 10.
Bu T what is this to Scotland, fay the Papifts ?
He anfwers.
What Good or Evil, efpecially in Religion, has come to the one, has been found, by manifold Expe- rience, eafily derived to the other.
He adds out of our own Chronicles, * That when King Lucius, A. D. 124. embraced the
Chriftian
Mr. J. O wen'i Tlea. 7 7
Chriflian Faith in the South Part of the I/land, in that fame Year Donaldy King of the North Part of it, be- came a Chriftian : And that when the South-Britains were perfecuted under Dioclefiariy A. D. 300. many of them fled to Crachlint King of S^ots ; who lovingly received them, and aflign'd them the Ifte of Man, where he ereded a Temple dedicated to Chrift, call'd Sodo- renfis Rcdefia. Hence the Bifhop of Man is calfd the Bifiiop of SodoY.
The fame Bifhop quotes alfo that known Place of T'ertullian^ adv. Jtid. cap. 7, 8. Britannorum loca Koma- nis inaccejfa Chriflo fnhdtta fnnt ; which Cardinal Baro^ niiis applies to the Northern Parts of Adrians Wall. For this Caufc, fays he, Petrus Cluniacenfn calls the Scots the more ancient Chriftians. Cent.-^.c.'^. & 2. c.2.
3. If the Northern Brhairis wQve converted by Men from Rome, how come they to keep Eafter, not after the Romany but Eaftern Manner ? When they were urg'd to conform to the Roniljh Modes, they pleaded the Cuftom of the Afiatich ; from whom they had re- ceived the Chriftian Religion.
When the .S'^xo-i^ow^/^Bilhopsimpos'd Conformity in this Particular, the Scots oppos'd them : And Bi- jfhop Colman chofe rather to leave his Charge than com- ply, about 66^.
The Britains and PiBs were as rigid Non-confor- mifts as he in this Point ; would not fubmit to Ro7ney becaufe they had received their Religion from AJia^ and not from Italy.
Dagamusy their Bifhop, refus'd all Communion with thQ Rom a}2 Bifhops, and would not fo much as eat with them in the fame Houfe. Bede 2. 4.
Bede himfelf owns. That Palladius was the firfl: Scots Bifhop, tho they were Chriftians before. Palla- dius ad Scotos in Chrifimn Credentes — — [riwus mititur Epifcopus. lib. I. c. 13.
Obj. In Palladius's time Britain had fuch Bifhops as were in all other Parts of the Roman Empire. Bede. t Anfu.
^8 An Abridgment of
Anfw. I. Many of the Brit/fi and Scots Bifhops were ordain'd only by one Bifhop according to Bede 3. 21. Whereas in other Parts of the Empire they \^ere ordain'd by three Bifhops, Con. Nic. can. 4.
2. 'Tis not unlikely, but that Britain being a Pro- vince of the Roman ErHprey its Church Government might be in fome Degree modell'd, as in other Parts of the Empire, in imitation of the Pagan Modes.
That the Hierarchy in the Churches of that Em- pire had its Pattern from the Heathen, will appear from the following Obfervations.
1. The Heathen had their {Sacer dotes) their Priefls, and over 'em their Chief Priefts, whofe Office was to ordain and govern. Jul Ep. ad Arfac. in Soz.om. V. 1 5. In every Province one Chief Prieft had the fu- preme Power, to whom the inferior Orders were fiibjed.
2. Thb Mafter of the Sentences confeHes, that the diftindion of Bifhops, Metropolitans, Archbifliops, was borrowed from the Gentiles. — a Genttbus in- t/odu^a, videtur^ qui fuos Flamines — Lib. 4. difi. 2 5. M.
3. Ponticus VnunnifU is of the fame Opinion, and tells us, that there were in Britain before the Planta- tion of Chriftianity, 28 Flamensy and 3 Archflamens. In the room of the Flamens were fet up Bifhops, and in the room o^ th^ Archflamens Archbifhops ; the Seat of the Archflamens were London^ Torky and Caerleon upon Vsk j to thefe 3 Metropolitans were fubjed 28 ^i-- Jliops. Hift. Brit. lib. 4. p. 3 2.
4. Thus Cafar fpeaking concerning the Govern- ment of the antient Druids of France , fays, that they raanag'd all the Pagan Devotions under the Con- dud of one chief Prefident, whofe Authority was fu- preme, and that this Difcipline was found in Britain — Drudtbus praefl nnus-^ de bell. Gal. I. 6.
Upon the whole.
The North of Britain feems to be converted by the Scots. What was done by Aidanus and others,
in
Mr. J. OwQns Tlea. 79
in converting the North-Saxons, isy I think, own'd by all Hiftorians that treat of that Subjed.
After the Scots became Chriftians their Church- Government was managed by Presbyters, call'd Ciil'- deesy or Monksy who according to their Hiftorians, govern d till Palladius was fent by Pope Celefline Zr gainft the Pelagian Hercfiey at which time he eftablifh'd Bifhops in Scotland^ which was many Years after the publick reception of Chriftianity in that Kingdom.
And according to Buchanan and Camhden they had no Diocefans till the time of Malcolm. III. A.D. 1070. 'twas yet much longer before they had any Archbi- fhops ; fo that the Archbilhop of York in the 1 2th Age obtained of the Pope that he Ihould be their Me- tropolitan, but the Scots Bifhops oppofing it, the Pope freed them from that pretended Jurifdidion. Vid. Collier in Scot,
II. I now proceed to give an Inftancc of a Presby- ter's Ordaining in Scotland^ viz.
Segenius a Presbyter and Abbot of the Monaftery of Hy, did with other Presbyters ordain Aidan, and his Succeflbr Finan, Bede Htfl, 5. 5.
Bu T 'tis faid by our Adverfaries that there was al- ways one Bifhop in Hy, according to the Ulfler Annals y Sec. I anfwer,
I . No Author near that time fays chat there was a Bifhop conftantly Rcfident at Hy. As to the An- nals of Uljier, they are juftly accounted Apocryphal, not being attefted by any Author of that Age.
1. If there was a Bi/iop at Hy, he was fubjed to the Abbot-Presbyter, who was the only Church Governor of that Ifland and the Provinces about. The Government was undoubtedly in the Abbot's Hands, and Ordination is an Ad of Government. Habere folet ifla Jnfula reBorem Semper Ahhatem Preshy" mum. Bed. 3. 4.
The Abbots or Presbyters of Hy govern*d and or- dain'd, and no certain Inftance was yet produc'd of Ordination by Bidiops in that Diftrid. 3.
8o An Ahidgmeni oj
5. Whhrfas 'tis iirg'd there was a fecond Bi/Jhop at ^y, when y^/^/z;2 was ordain'd ,- there's no manner of proof for it, nor can fuch a Man be produc'd out of Beds. It does not appear that he was ordain'd B:ihop. Bede calls him a Prieilj or i^ he was, how will it appear he was ordain'd by the Bifhop of H). Bed. 3.8,
Therefore, faith the Learned Hiftorian, Ordained perhaps by the Bifbop of Hy. He durft not fay pofitive- ly it was fo, for he knew he could not prove it> there- fore puts it off with 2. perhaps —
XI. In Ireland the Church was govern'd without Diocefans for a long time. Archbifhop Ujher Oiews out of Nenmusy that St. Patrick the Apoflle of Ireland^ who liv'd in the Vth Century, founded here 365 Churches, and as many Bijhops ; by which 'tis evi- dent that I/iJh Bifhops were no other than Parochial Minifters. Tho' Lanfranc and Bernard diflike the Pradice of having fo many BifhopSi yet produce no Initance of the Irijh being fubjed to Diocefan Rulers. viz. Jamefons FundamentaPs of the Hierarchy examind. Sedion 7.
XII. The antient WaUenfes had their Minifters ordain'd by Presbyters without Bifhops. The Learned Father Patd fays, they had Paftors of their own 400 Years before the Reformation. Hifh. of the C. of Trent, p. 3^4.
These JValdenfesy who liv'd about the AIps^ were thtFathers and famous Predeceifors of the Proteflants ; the firfl VVitnelfes againfc Antichrift, and are to this Day (as a certain Great Bifhop calls 'em) the piirefl Remains oj Primitive ChnfUanity. Per. Hi ft of IVald, I. I. c. 13. p. 62.
VVheiIias \is faid, thofc in Moravia and Auftria had Bifliops.
Thly were only titular or fenior Presbyters, as the Popifh Writers obferve : But more of this under the next Obje(^ion.
It
Mr. J. Owen'j- Tlea. 8 1
It appears even from Rei nevus's Account of 'cm, that Presbyters and Bifhops were the fame, for his elder and younger Son ordain'd, who were but Presbyters. 'Tom. 4. part 2. p. 758. He makes this their great Crime, quod nerno-i major Jit altero in Ecdejia^ That they had no fuperior Bifhop in the Church.
The Fratres Bohemt had their Succeilion of Minf- fters from them. For they fent Michael Zambergius and two more for Ordination to the poor IValdenfesy who never had a Bifhop among em but in Title only.
But the AfTertors of Prelacy fay out of Comem'm, who writ their Hiftory, that they had Bifhops, and were not rightly fatisfied about Ordination. I anfwer,
I. Comenius affirms Bifhop and Presbyter to be the fame, and the late Redor of Bury owns it ; fays he. It muft: be confefl that Comenius faith Bifhop and Prcf- byter are one. His ^to. Anfw-. 104.
The Bohemians looked on Bifhops and Presbyters as the fame Order of Miniflers. This is evident from their Book of Difcipline, which does not make the Bifhop fuperiour to Presbyters, and alfo from the Teftimony of their Adverfaries.
^neas Sylvius, fpeaking of the Huffttesy faith, that one of their damnable Pofitions, is that there was no Superiority among Miniflers. Hupts pefiifira j'aBicnis dogmata funt — Inter Sacerdotes nuUu?n difcrimen. Hift.
In the fame Colledion of Writers concerning the Bohemian Affairs, P/V(?/o7;z/>/^«j, fpeaking of the Huffites^ delivers this as one of their Dogmata, or Opinions, "That there was no different Order of Alinifters. Sucerdotiim nullum habere in gradu. — T'huan compares *em with the Englifh Nonconformifts. Hifi.part i. /. 5.
3. Their cafling Lots was a fign they were not: wholly fatisfied ; and no wonder, iince they were but newly rfeparated from the ROTnilh Church, and cou'd
G not
8 7 An Ahrid^eni of
not be fiippos*d to throw off all its Errors at once : But their fending to the Waldenfesy and fubmitting to their Presbyterial Ordination determined 'em, and anfwers the Obje(5lion.
Befides, when LutJjer began to appear, there was a great Harmony between him and thefe Bohemians^ both in DoBrine and DifcifUne. J. a Lafcoy a noble Polander, and A. Comeniusy in their Account ot em, tell us they had Superintendants, and particular and general Synods, but fay nothing of Diocefan Bifhops.
XIII. The Lollcirdsy or Wicklifs Followers in Eng" /^«ij held and pradis'd Ordination by meer Presbyters, not for want of Bifhops, but from this Principle, that all Minifters of Chrift have e^iial Power, Wiilfingh, Htft. ad A. D. 138P. f. 3 3P, 340.
But they are charg'd with a great many Errors, as that no Day is Holy, no, not the Lord's Day, as that the Order of Presbyters was no ways approved of by God. If'alf. p. ^66.Gips. 107.
Atif. The Charge is falfe, for their Ordaining PreJ-^ lyters by Presl^yters is affirmed by IValJingham 2iS a Mat- ter of Fad, p. 339. 340. uid. Tutamen Evang. 32, 42.
Befides, that they own'd the Chriftian Sabbath is evident.
For ttie Cardinals and Bifhops fent by Lewis XII. to inquire into their Dodrine and Manners give *eni this Teflimony, that they baptiz'd their Children re- ligioufly , obferved the Lord's Day, preached the Word. But they had no Images or Ornaments of the Mafsin their Churches. Molin.de Mon. Franc ^ 155. The Hiflorian complains how all parts of England were full of thofe People, and the Prelates knew it, but none were found to perfecute 'em but the Bifliop of Norwich. Walfingh,
XIV. In the Ifland T'aprobaney now Ceylony which is in the Indian Sea, there was a Chriftian Church govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon without a Superior Bifhop.
This
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlca. 55
This iriand is a Province big enough for a Bifhop, yet had none in Jrifiin the Emperor's time about Jrtn. Do7n. 520. Lloyds reckoned by Collier among the befl Lexicographers y makes this Ifland 2000 Miles in Compafs, Heylin about 800. If the prefent Ceylon be lefs than the 'Taprohane of the Anticnts, 'tis no won- der ; fince the Menders afliire us, that the Sea has o- verflown a great part of it, and I think this Obfer- vation will reconcile Ptolemy and Bochan in their different Accounts of it.
Obj. There is a Tradition that Philip the Evange- lift preach'd the Gofpel there.
Atifw. Be it fo, all that can be collecled from it is, that here is a Church /ettfd without Bifhops.
Well then, it appears by this Paffage that Biftops were not thought elfential to Churches ; no, not m the fixth Age. Legiinjignem relationem Cofma Monachi. de T'aprohana. L. Holflen. de Min. Conf.p, 3^.
The Fathers in the Second Council of Carthage^ Anno Dom. 428. did obferve, that till that time fome Dioc^fes never had any Bifhops at all, and thereupon decreed they Hiou'd have none for the future ; a plain Indication that the Chriliians then did not look up- on the Government of the Church by Bifhops to be jure Di'vino. Placet ut Diocefes qufi nunqunm Epifcopos acceperunty non habeam. Con. Cartb. 2. can, 5. Car an. ^ Labbe.
G % chap:
84 -^^ Ahndgment oj
Chap. XL
Obj. Ordination hy Vreshyters condemned by the Canons. Anfw. By thofe Canons which aggran" dize BiJhopSy Epifcopal Ordinations are made "void. Arguments again fl the uninterrupted Sue- cejjion of Bifhops from the Pope and Apojlles. The ill Confequence offuch an AJfertion confidered, Ifchyrus, CoUuthus, and Jerom, vindicated.
T..TERE 1*11 confider Tome Objedions made againft ^ ^ the Ordination we plead for.
1. Ohj. Ordination by Presbyters without Billiops is condemn'd by the old Canons.
Anf. I. The antient Canons are not the eftablifh'd Rule of Government among us. In that Refped they are even difown'd by the Church.
2. By them, many things are refer'd to the Bifhops, meetly to fupport their Grandeur, as the confecra- ting of Churches, the ereding of Alt.irs, the ma- •Icing of Chryfm, the reconciling of Penitents, the
vailing of Nuns. This is acknowledged by the Coun- cil of Hifpalis. Let the Preshyiers know that the Power of Ordaining is forbiduen \m hy the Apofiolical See, by vir^ iue of Novel Ecdejiajlical Conflitutions. C. Hifp. c Can. •;.
For the fame Reafon the Country Bifhops were re- flrain a from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch. Can. 10. Ann. Dom. 344.
And upon this Account 'twas decreed in the Coun- cil of Sardisy Ann^ Dom> 347. That jio Village or leffer Town mufl have a Bifliop, - lefl the Name fhou'd grow contemptible. Ne vikfcat^ forfooth, No- men Epifcopi.
3. Epifcopal Ordinations, as now manag'd, will prove Ni;llities by the old Canons. Thofe call'd the
A-
Mr. J. Owen'i Tka. 85
Apoftles, which are confirmed by the Vlth General Councilor Conflantinopky do dcpofe all Bifhops that are chofen by the Civil Magiftrate. Can, 29-
This Canon is reviv'd by the 2d Council of Nice, Can- 3. which the Greeks call the Vllth General Coun- ciL
Now, all our Engli/h Bifhops are chofen by the Magiftrate, the Writ of Conge / Eflier to the Dean and Chapter is only Matter of Form, and they can't rejed the Perfon recommended by the Crown.
Canon 6. 80. forbids Bifhops to intermeddle with fccular Affairs, on pain of Depofition,
The Church of England docs not obferve the Ca- nons of the firft General Councils, which Archbifhop Laud wou'd have us believe are the Meafures of her Reformation next the Scripture.
The Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Biihop to be by all the Bifhops of the Province, at leaft by three, with the Confent of the abjent Bi]]>cps ex* pref/d in Writing. Can. 4. A Rule not obferv'd by the Engliih Bifhops that ever I heard of.
No more are the Canons of the great Council of Chakedon obferv'd. where Can. 3. 7. forbids Miniftcrs to take Farms,or meddling with Secular and Military Af- fairs, or receiving Secular Honours.
Cant. 10. d^pofes all obftinate Pluralifts, and if du- ly executed would bear hard upon thofe that heap Pelion upon Offa, as if they wou'd mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Eccleliaftical Promotions.
Thefe Canons are only produc'd ad hominem, to fhew how unreafonable 'tis to urge 'em againfl Ordi- nations by Presb3;^ters, when they may be equally urg'd againft Epifcopal Ordinations. If then it be a Crime not to obferve the Canons, let 'em who are without any Canonical Guilt caft the firil Stone.
11. Ohj. 'Tis faid, our Ordinations are not by fuch Diocefans as have their uninterrupted Succeffion down from the Apoftles.
G 3 Mr
86 '^An AhndgYmnt of
Afifu:- I. This is the Argument of the Papifis a- gainft the Hrfl Reformer s, whofe Ordinations were denied, becaufe they wanted this pretended Succef- fion. 'Tis urg'd by Bellarmine, G/etZser, ParfvnSy Sta^ fletOHy ArmuXi Ti^rrian the Jefuic who writ a Book againfi: Proteflant Ordination,
2. This great Argument of the Succeflion is refu- ted by our Proteflant Writers, efpecially by Sadeel^ |vho after he has challenged *em to produce a Scrip- ture for it, proves that the ordinary Succeflion of Minifters may be interrupted by Scripture Examples.
As when the Pritilhood was taken away from the Houfe of £//, to whom a Promife of perpetual Sue- cefliOn was made, i Sam. 2. 50.
Under the Kings of Ifraely God rais'd up Elijah to preach up Repentance to *em, tho he was not of the Sacerdotal Race.
Nay further, Chrill himfelf, in the Reformation of the Church, chofe Apoftks, not from the Priefts, but from other Families, Dj legiu 'uoc. Mm, f, 545,
If ever a Succeifion were neceflary to the Being of a Church, it muil: be in the Jewifh Priefthood which was intaifd upon one Family ; but that Church remain'd a true Church, tho' the regular Suc- ceflion was deflroy'd, Inftances of fuch«are given by Jofephus» Antiq. i^-Cap. 2. Holy Bi'adford thtMzx'^ tyr, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Field, Dr. TVioite and others, fpeak to the fame effed:, Vid, Plea-
Mr. Perkins fpeaks of a threefold Succeflion,
Firft of Perfons, and Dodrines in the Primitive Church.
The next of Perfons alone> among Infidels and Hereticks.
The third of Dodrine alone ; and thus our Mi- ttifters fucceed the Apoftles. For this muft be remem- ber'd. That the Povoer of the Keys, and that of Order and Jurifdidion is annexed in the New Teftament to Doctrine. Vd- 2./. 171. 3. If
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlca. 87
5. If this Hypothecs be true, there can be no true Minifters in the Church of England^ (ince the Chain of SucceiTion has been frequently broken, and one Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain.
All our Diocefan Bifhops as fuch, derive their Suc- cefTion from the Pope of Rome : Now \i we can find any interruption in the Succeffion of Bifhops there, it nullifies all the Adminiftrations of thofe who de- pend upon it.
If the Pope (Chrift's pretended Vicar) proves to be the Antichrift j if many Pofes were Hereticks^ 5b- domiteSi Idolaters, Cenjurers, lVhore7mngcrs, Murderers^ as fome of their own Authors affirm ; if there were two or three Popes at a time ; What then becomes of the pretended Line of Siicceffion ? Thefe Things are Matter of Fad^ and if none of em interrupt the Succeffion, what can ?
Ciirift had his Minifters in the Church, but not by Virtue of this Succeffion that fome are fo fond of.
4. This Principle of lineal Succeffion from Romey deftroys all Churches in the World : for there's no Church this Day can produce fuch a Succeffion, as hath met with no Canonical Interruption.
The Greeky Latin^ and African Churches bid fair- eft for it, and all of 'em pretend to derive their Suc- ceffion from St, Peter.
Thus the mofl confiderable part of the Gentile World that's Chriil:ianiz'd, wou'd be reputed the Offspring of the Chief Apoftle, as they term him.
It feems St. Paul, the Great Apoftle of the Gen- tiles, either left noSuccefibr behind him, or no body knows what's become of him.
Petevy the Apoftle of the Je-jjs, mufl: be the univer- fal Head of all the Gentile Churches, and Paul the Apoftle of the Gentiles, has left no body, it feems, neither Jew nor Gentile, to derive their claim from him. Thus poor Paul and the other Apoftles mufl be written Childlefs, or be the Progenitocs of an Off-
G 4 ^ fpring
88 An Ahndgment of
fpriiig that's long ago extin(5t, or To very obfcure that their Names are written in the Diift.
But the Unhappinefs of it, is rhe Greeks Latin and Ajnca7i Churches, who pretend to be the three Patri- archal Succeflbrs can't agree about the Inheritance. The Pofe^ who reckons himfelf the eldeft Brother, claims to himfelf the whole, and condemns the other two as fpurious. Thus Bellarmine fpeaking of the Greek Church, fays, that fhe has no Succeffion ; and that there has been no SuccefTion in Amiochy Alexan- dria and Jerufalem, fince thofe Places fell into the Hands of the Perftans and Saracens ; and if ever there was any, the fame was very obfcure. De Not* Eccl. cap. 8.
On the other hand, the Greeks condemn the Roman Succeffion, and, according. to Bellarmine, were the firft who heartily oppos'd the Primacy of Rome. Ltb. de Fontif. pref.
Even Barlaajn the Monk denies it. What Law, fays he, obligeth us to reckon the Bifhop of Rome Peters only Succeflbr, that mull: rule all the reft ? He goes further, and denies Peter to have been Bijhop of Rome ; as many of our Proteftant Writers do. De princip. cap. ^. in Bihl, pair. vid. Fane. Chron,
Now, of all thefe pretended Succeflions, the Roman (from whence the Englifh Prelacy derives itfelf) is moft fufpitious, as beuig often interrupted by Sirnonyy Herefy and Schifm.
5. By this Principle none can tell whether they be Miniders of Chrift : How fliall they know that all the Predeceflbrs of that Bifhop who ordain'd them were Canonical Bifliops ? that none of em were guil- ty of Simony or Herefy, or any other Ads or Things that make Canonical Nullities ? Can any Mortal know who was the BiHiop that was the Root of his Succeilion ?
6. Let it be further confider'd, that the antient Catalogues of the Apoftle's Succeflbrs were made by Conjecture. Eufeb, Eccl. Hifl. lib. 3. cap.^. This
Mr. J. OwenV flea. 89
This Succe/fion is no where fo evident as to <!e- monflrare the thing intended. A Lift woii'd be ex- peded of Apoftolical SucceiTors, not only in the great Patriarchal Churches, but in all others planted by the Apoftles, as Philippic Corimh, Cefarea ; and not only in Ephefus, but in all the feven Churches of Afiay which has not been yet produc'd. In the Patriarchal Churches, the beginning of the Line is infcrutable.
At Rome, 'tis not certain, whether Linus ^ Cletusy Anacletus, or Clemens are to be reckon'd firft.
As for Antiochy 'tis not yet agreed whether Peter, Euodius or Ignatius fucceeded Peter or Pauly or the one and the other Paul : At Alexandria, where the Succce/Iion feems to run cleareft, the Original of the Power is imputed to the Presbyters, as was obferv'd already.
7. If there be any Certainty in this Succeflion, the Fathers afcribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bi- Ihops. Ignatius, a Man of indifputable Authority with Prelates, faith, T'hat the Presbyters fucceeded in the place of the Bench of the Apofiles. reHv Tf6(r/3yT«f<yv w's toxov ad M^^gp- 3^' 'vof. Ed.
Irenaus, another fuppofed Champion of the Party, affirms tlie fame- Traditionem, ah Apoflolis, qua per Succefftonem Presbytcrorum. adv* har, I, 3.
The Apoftles ordain*d as Presbyters, and in that Capacity Presbyters Aicceed em ; but 'tis the Siic- ceffion of Do6trine and not of Perfons that the Fathers principally inftftupon.
The Succeflion of Perfons without the Orthodox Doftrine is no Mark of a true Churth ; as among the Arians, where they had a Succeflion of Bifhops, and yet no true Church. Nazian. in laud. Athan.
Now the Swcceflion of true Dodrine being wanting in the Popifli Church, the Succeflion of Perfons is only an empty Name to circumvent and amufe the fimple.
3 Olj\ Ifchyras was depos'd becaufe he was ordain'd by Colluthus, an Alexandrian Pcesbyter. Halfs Div.
Right
QO . >^'^ Ahridgrne\ft of
Right, ^\i ^2. Biifons Perp. Gov. r. 13. Athanaf. 2 ApoL Anjw' I. Colluthns ordain'd as a pretended Bifhop, conlHtuted by Meletius Archbiftiop of "thehaisy there- fore was commanded by the Council to be a Presby- ter, as he had been formerly.
Dr. Stillingfleet fays, Colluthtis did not ad as a /'n/- /i^ttr in Ordaining, but as a Bifhop of the Mektian Party in Cy//«J, as the Clergy of Mareotis fpeaking of Jfchyras's Ordination iAjb^ n^xt^is^it rS ^gfTiSvii^s ^e^SfcS-wT®- ixitrxeriivy by Colluthus u Presbyter making a Jhew of being a Bijlopy and is fuppos'd to have been ordain'd Bi- fhop by Meletius. Iren.p .381, 382.
2. Ifchyras's Ordination was declar'd void becaiife he was not mentioned in the Breviculum, or Regiiler of thofe who had been ordain'd by Meletius, And yet Athanaftus himfelf acknowledges, that the Eufe- bians and Melitians own*d that he was a Presbyter. Apol> 2,p' 781. and in his Letter toAthanaJius he does not difown it. p* jiS.
3. If Ifchyras had been ordain'd by a Bifliop, there were Circumftances enoijgh to induce the Council to pronounce it null, as done out of the Diocefs, or by Schifmaticks, or without a Title ; in which Cafes, even Epifcopal Ordination were declared null. Thefe v/ere Circumftances that made 'em uncanonical : fo that the irregular Ordination of a Bifliop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter; and therefore the irregular Bifliop and the irregular Pref- byter are of the fame Order and Authority. Confil, Arel. cap, 13. Cmc Nic- vtd. Naked 'Truth, p- 45.
When Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void, 'tis, fays Dr. FieMy to be underftood according to the rigour of Canons in ufe in their Age, which ap- pears by this that Ordination Jlne tipulo were null. Cone. Chalced, can, <5.
What Jerom fpeaks in the next Objection, is only of a Canonical Reflraint, which can't prejudice their in- herent Power.
the End of the Firft Part*
Tilt amen Evangelicum :
O R, A
Defence of Scripture-Ordination
(AGAINST
Mr. GIT?S\ BOOK,
Entitled ^
Tentamen Novum.)
Proving that
Ordination by Treshyters is valid.
Timothy and Titus were no T>iocefan Rulers.
The Treshyters of Ephefus were the Apoflles
Succejfors in the Government of that Churchy
and «^^ Timothy. The Firfi Epjlle to Timothy was written
before the Meeting at Miletus. The Antient Waldenfes had no T>iocefan
Bijho^. y
By the Author of the Plea. Abridgd and Vindicated by Cha. Owen.
Confirmafio Juvenum, clericorum OrdtnatiOf locorum conjecratio, refcrvatur Papx (3 EpifcopK proper cuplditatem lucri tempera^ lis ^ honoris. An. 28. DoBr. Job. Wiclef, in Cone. Conjlantiens,
________
PREFACE.
Ol/fi<.. Gipps, Ute I{eclor of Bury in Lancafhire, nfter fome ^^^y*^ Tears fj/ence, fent forth a fort of anAnfwer to the Plea.
1. He calls his Book^ Tentamen Novum, x. e. Anew Trial of Skill. (Here is an implicit Confeffon of a baffl'4 Caufe ; and therefore betal{es himfelf to new Arts to fupport it.) As if he had Jaid,
Gentlemen, I'm fenfible the Caufe I plead for can't ftand on its old Foundations, therefore I'll make a new effort, and try whether the lofty Fabrickof Prelacy mayn't be fupporr- ed on the flender and nice Foundation of a new point of Chronology. If this fail, the Caufe is. loft.
2. In the Bs^o/s Book, there is but one Chaffer^ which he calls an Anfcver to Mr. Owen's Plea, and in that he briefly touches upon two or three of ten Arguments, and yet weud perjwade his Reader that he had a?ifwer'd the whole. *
3. The defignofhis Book^ is to prove, that meer Presbyters have m inherent Power of Ordination, and that all their Ordinations are Nullities. This Notion,
1 . ZJtichurches all the I{eformed Churches abroad, who have no Prelatical Bijhops, and by this Gentleman s Principles, no Sacra- ments nor Salvation.
2. It alfo condemns the very Church of England, who in her Articles (composed by the Archbijhops, Bijhops a7id the Clergy, and Confirmed by Parliament, 13 Eliz. ii.j allows the Ordinations ef the I{eformed Churches beyond Sea, which are by meer Presbyters. Art. 23.
The Ordinations of Foreign Churches were not <jueJiiond here before Bifhop Laud'j //wc ; in whcfe Days the ]viS,'DWmuvci of Diocefan Epifcofacy was indujirioujly trumpt up to the grea.t Joy of the Popijh Party.
3. The I{eSIor*s Hypothefis bears h/ird upon the late Epijcopal Church of Scotland, which admitted Orditiation by Presbyters to he valid. Bifhop of Sarum's Vind. 84, 85. printed 1696.
4. Befides, the Moderate and Learned Defenders of Epi/copacy generally grant the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, tho* they judge it irregular where Bijhops ynay be had.
Even Mr. Hooker allows, that the Chiirch can give Presbyters Power to ordain. Eccl.Polit. 7. p. 37, 38,
Bijhop Downame grants, that in Cafe of Necejfty, Presbyters may ordain without Bijhops 5 bectiufe in the Primitive Church, tJoe
PreJ-
94 PREFACE.
Presbyter in th Bijhofs Ahfence might perform thofc Ojfices thnt were appropriated to him. Def. of his Coiif. Serm* 3. p. 69, 1 c3. 0/ the fame Opinion are Bp. Bancroft, Bp. Morton, Bp. An- drews, J5/. Jewel, A. JB/. Uflier. Fuik, Forbes, Field, and ethers. Iren. 6, 8«
Of Confecration.
l^jf I{e^or complains that his Sermon of Confecration and Holi- nefs of Churches had not been anfwered by the Diffenters. p. i, 2.
Good B^afon for it fays Mr. O. becaufe it was not Printed. Then addsy
t. Confecration of Churches cant be provdfrom the NevpTefia- vient. It does not appear that Chrlfi or his Apofiles ever confc- crated any Place of VVorJhipy or impowe/d the Church to do it.
1. Nor can it befrovd from the OldTeflament: By the Ceremc- nial Law our -publicly Churches are fo far from being Holyy that they are Vnclean, becaufe rhe Dead are buried there.
Their Synagogues, which anfwer to our Parifh Churches, were not co7ifecratedy nar their Divinity Schools, which they judged undre Holy than their Synagogues.
3. The purefl Ages of Chrifiianity had no confecrated Churches.
Every Place is truly f acred in which we Converfe with God, fays Clem. Alexandrinus. Strom. 7.
No Inftance can be given of any Dedication of Churches till about Conftantine'j time ; and the Dedicationi of that Age were not ceremonious Confecrations : They were only celebrated with folemn Prayers, Praifes, Preaching, and adminifiring the Eucharijl. The Pagan Temples indeed were dedicated by certain Ceremonies to the Memory of their dcceafed Friends, whom they honour d as Gods, ^lnd accounted their Temples facred. Min. Fa^iix, p. 18, 19.
Tho the wifer of 'em thought ctherwife- No Edifice^ fays Plato, is of any great iVorth or truly Holy, that's built by fordid Mecha- nickj- CI. Alex. Strom- 5.
In imitation of them, the Chrlfiians, as they degenerated from the Apoflolical Simplicity^ built Tctnples in honour cf departed Saints and Martyrs ; calling 'em after their Names ; in tncmcry cf which they kfpt Feflivals, which gave occafion to cur Wakes.
Infhort, we conceive that all Places, where the Worfioip of God is celebrated, are equally Holy* God looks more on the Difpofjtion of the PVorJhipper, than he docs on the Place cf Worfhip j as Au^-. ft in welljpeakj' de Unit- C- 16.
PVhof advayitage by Confecration ? Is the iVorfhip of God more acceptable in a Confecrated, than in an Z/nconfecrated Place ? If it he not, what are we the better for Confecration ? If it be, let the Parti:^ans of Confecration prove it, A
A Defence of Scripture-Ordination, Sf^c.
Ch
A P.
I.
Who are Arminians. Calvinifm the DoBrine of the Church, SchoUflick Degrees when invented. Reafons whj BtjJjopsjhcu^d diveji "^emf elves of their Temporalities, Their fecuUr Power condemned by Councils y Canons y Emperors^ Confejfors. The vafi difference between the Jerufalem Council^ and the Englifh Convocation, Parochial Minijlers de- pnv^d of their Original Power, No Difciflinc in the Church. Minivers turned into Pnefts. Ordifjation by Presbyters among the Lollards, who were the Offspring of the A/itient Waldenfes,
^Efore the ReFior enters upoi} his Sub- jed, he defires his Reader to db- ierve how the Diflenters in mofl of their Books ^ reprefent us as Armini- ans. Then, wonders zcith what Confi- dence Mr. FranklandV little Striplings^ li fo foon as they have ccmmenc\l, he knows not ivhat Degree, are ready to deter?nine the Caufe between Arminius and Calviti.
Anf I. The Charge of Aminianifm is ether true -or falfe. If true, confefs it ; if falfe, difprove it.
t
2, VVhv
^6 An Abridgment of
2. Why mayn*t Mr. FranklancTs Pupils with the fame Freedom determine for Calvin^ as many raw Youths that come from the Univerjlties do for their beloved Arminius.
3. But the reafon why they determine againfl Ar- minius is, becaufe their Judicious and Learned Tutor direded 'em to ftudy the Scriptures and their own Hearts, which enabfd 'em betimes to exalt the free Grace of God, and to deprefs the proud enflaved Will of Man.
4. A Son of the Church fhou'd not wonder that Mr. Frankland (Iiou'd acquaint his Scholars with the Orthodox Antient DoElrine of the Church of England, whofe Learned Divines fubfcrib'd the Decrees of the Calviniflical Synod of Dort^ in Conformity to the Do- drine of the Englifh Church, which prefer'd *em after their Retwrn, and never cenfur'd that Ad of theirs.
5. As to Scholaftick Degrees, they are of no great Antiquity, invented in xh^Lateran Council Ann.Dom. 1 2 1 5. A wife Man values Perfons by their real Worth, ^nd not by empty Titles, which are moft coveted by fuch as are leaft worthy of 'em.
^ Another common Topick, fays the ReBor, is to
* reprefent the Bifhops proud and haughty, becaufe
* of the Honourable Title of Lord j^iven 'em.
AnJ. This is a Charge without Proof ^'Tis true, that fome good Chriftians have wifii'd that the Bifhops wou'd divell 'emfelves of their fecular Titles and Grandeur, for thefe Reafons among others,
1. Becaufe the Apoftles, whofe SuccefTors they pre- tend to be, alfum'd no fuch Titles ; they reckon'd emfelves Miniftersy not Lords.
2. Lordly Titles and Spiritual Dominion feem to be forbidden by Chrift, the great Lord of the Church, Mat, 20. 25, 25. T^he Princes of the Gentiles ex^rcife Do-* minion over 'e'w, hut it Jhall not be fo among you.
* That
Mr. J. Owen J' Tlca. 97
That which diftingiiifhes Civil Magifttatcs from Gofpel Minirters, is the Exercjfe of Do?niriiun and 77- tles of Honour. Thcfe are forbidden to Minifters ; It Jhall not be fo- among you y fays Chnfl, q. d. you rhuft not exercife Lordfliip and Dominion over your Flocks and Brethren in the Miniliry.
It ill becomes Servants to aflume the Form of Prin-^ ces, when Chrifl our great Prince afTumed the Fm-m of a Servant. PVhofoever (fays he) "jjiII be Chief — let i.im be your Servant^ Mat. 20. 27, 28.
3. The Diflenters are not the only Perfons who've op- posed the Secular Power and Lordly Titles of Bifliop.'".-
In the Primitive Church, Bifhops were forbidden to intermeddle with Secular Affairs, upon Pain of Deprivation.
The ancient Canons, calfd the Apoftles, which are confirmed by the Vlth General Council at Ccnftantt-^ mple, do depofe all Bifhops that engage 'emfelvcs in fuhlitk Adminiftrationsy and ivorldly Cares.
By the great Council or Chakedon Bifhops are for-? bidden to receive fecular Honours. Can. 7.
In the Council of Mentz, call'd by Charles the Greati A. D. 813. The Clergy are enjoin'd to nhflain from fe- cular Offices and Affairs, and from ambitious aifum- ing of Degrees of Honour.
A German Council held about the Year 85?), makes the Clergy uncapable of Temporal Dignities. I Jeroin defires the Bifhops to remember^ '1 hat they i are Priefls^ not Lords. Ad Nepot.
j Aufiin fays, that Epifcopacy is a Name of Work^ and not of Homur. De civit. i^. 1^. Let me add?
Vakntinian made a Law, recalling the judicial Pow- er of Bifhops, yet they grafped a'l Power into their Hands, till at lafl they were able to cope with Kings and Emperors.
This made em a common Grievance to the Prin-* ces of Europe, infomuch that Fredrick II Emperor, a- ^out the Year i 245, attempted to reduce 'cm to their
H pfi-
98 An Abridgment of
primitive Simplicity^ as appears by his Letter to the King of England and that of France y and to many o- ther Princes. But, alas ! the Ecclefiaftical was too hard for the Temporal Power, for the poor Emperor was at laft deposed by Pope Innocent IV.
In the Year 1 247, many of the French Nobility en- tered into a Confedracy,confirmed by an Oath, to re- duce the. Clergy to the primitive Simplicity or Hu- mility. M. H^c/i. ad annos fupra diBos.
4. The Lordly Titles and Dominion of the Clergy were very oftenfive to feveral Confeflbrs and Martyrs in England before the Reformation.
Jo, IVicklify that eminent Light of his Age, affirm- ed, 'twas a mortal Sin for Clergymen to exercife Ci- vil Dominion. Waif. Hifi. p. 208.
Swinderbyy a learned ConfefTor, i^ !K)t a Martyr, fays to this Purpofe, ' That the Prieft who defires *^ worldly Power and Lordfhips, and has moft of
* 'em, he is mod Antichriit of all the Pnefls that be
* on Earth. Fox ad An. 141 3.
John Purvey, a learned Writer againfl Popery ; fays,
* Tis a great Abomination that Bifhops and other
* Prelates be fo great Lords in this World, whereas
* Chrift and his Difciples never took upca 'emfecular
* Dominion.
JV. Tindaly that famous Inflrument of the Refor- mation, who was burnt for tranfcribing the Bible in- to Englijly writes, 'T'voas a Shame of ail Shames, that Bijhops JJjould deal in Civil Caufes. Hip Works, p. 213.
In the next Place, the Reflor fhews the Parallel be- tween this Church-Government and that of the Apo- filcs. ^ Our Epifcopai Government (faith he) is e-
* (lablifh'd upon, certain Canons and Laws, made
* and confented to by the Convocation, confining of
* Bifhops and Presbyters, and by the Multitude of- ^ Believers,^ i. e, their Reprefentatives in Parliament, ' and thus Was in the Council oijerufakm. AEi. 15.
Anjii:eY i. I expeded he'd have faid, the Epifcopai
Go-
Mr. J. Owen'j Tlea. 99
Government is cflablifh'd upon the Word of God, and not upon Laws of humane devifwg.
2. He makes the Multitude of Believers in Jerufa^ lem to be as the Reprefentatives of the People in Par- liament. The Learned differ about the Original of Parliaments; but this Gentleman by an unparallel'd Felicity of Invention, has found it in the Council ar Je^ rufakmy where no Body before ever dream'd of em.
3. The Council at Jerujak?/!, under the Condu(3: of the Spirit, enjoyn'd the neceflary Forbearance of a few Things to avoid Offence. A&s 15. 25.
The Englijh Convocation, confeffedly fallible, has made Multitudes of Canons, enjoyning thePradiceof many unneceflary Things that create Offence. The ^erufalem Council widen'd the Church-door, for they let in the Gentiles without Circumcifion ; the Convo- cation ftraltned it, and fet up a new Partition- Wall.
4. The Council at Jenifakm freed the Chriftians from a Divine Yoke, -y/z.. Circumcifion ; the Convoca- tion binds a Humane Yoke of burdenfome Ceremo- nies on our Necks> which has given Birth to many unhappy Differences among us. When Rehoboarns little Finger proves heavier than Solomons Loinsy no Wonder there's a Schifm in Jfiael.
5r. The Jerufalem Council made no new Canon, on^ ly continued fome Divine Prohibitions that were oblig- ing before ; contain'd in one fhort Verfe. AB. 1 5. 29.
The Convocation has made but 141 new Canons 3 which make a large Volume.
6. The Canons at Jerufalem have no Penalty an- nexed to em. ver. ig. Our Englifi Canons thundei? out terrible Anatheinas againft all the Breakers of em.
Mr. Owen fayS;, ' Parifh-Priefts have no Power of Di- * fcipline. Thei^eHor anfwers. They have Power to re- buke and admonifi], to fufpend for a while from
the Lord's-Supper.
Anf A private Perfon may adrnonifli and rebuke ;
Fut admit theirs to be publick, 'tis but like that of a
I CO An Ahridgment oj
But they can fufpe'fid for a while ^
Anf. Yes, for Fourteen Days, and then the Matter is put out of their Power.
We are not againft Appeals ; but for reftoring Parochial Minifters the Power which Chrifc left em.
The true State of the Cafe is this :
1. Parijh-Minifters have no Power left em whom to baptize.
2. Have no Power to exclude fcandalous Offenders from the Sacrament, unlefs they'll profecut'e. 'em at the Bifliop's Court ; nor then, but for once.
3. Have no Power to call Perfons to publick Re- pentance before the Church, without an Order from the Confiftory-Court.
4. They've no Power to judge any Perfon to be Ex- communicate, nor td abfolve the Penitent after Ex- communication. They only read the Chancellor's Sen- tence, who is ufually a Layman fent 'em in the Bifhop's Name; and which they are obliged to publifh right or wrong, or be fufpended.
The very Liturgy itfelf complains that the Godly primitive Difcipline is wanting in our Churches, and till that be reftor'd, direds the Parfon on the firft Day of Lent, to denounce the heavy Curfes of God a- gainft his' impenitent Parifhioners. Vid. Cominat.
* The Redor complains, That the Dijjenters call ^em < Priefts.
Anf. What Reafon he fhou'd be offended at a Name they are fo fond of, I know not. The Words Prieft-^ Ijcod and Priefis are us'd five or fix times in the Form of Ordination.
The Reformers of the Common-Prayer, in 1662^ chang'd the V/ord Minifter into that of Pn>/?,.at ieaft mfi-ve Places The Matter of the SuccefTion touch'd, upon by the Rector here, is fully anfwer'd in the Plea..
* To juflify their Ordinations (fays Mr. dps) by. ' the Example of the Lo/Z^rdfj, is buttotalkofYeflerday.
Anf. Mr- 0. gave twelve Inftances of Ordination by.
Pref-^
Mr. ]. OwQiis Tlea. loi
Presbyters, and all more ancient than the LollarSs. Plea, c. lo. p. 125. bur he prudently overlooks alJ thefe, and attacks only this latelnftance, that he might fay it was of Tejierday ; and yet his Ttjlerday is above 400 Years ago.
2. The Lollards were famous Witneifes againft An- tichriftian Errors, and many of 'em fealed the Truth with their Blood, and therefore we fhould not judge (o lightly of their Pradice as the ReBor does. They averted an inherent Power in Presbyters to ordain, as Mr. 0. prov'd out of WaJfinghams Hifl, p. ^^p.
3. This Tnftance is the more confiderable, becaufe the Lollards were the OiF-fpring of the ancient IValr dertjes, as Perrm obferves, which confirms the TValden- Jian Ordinations to be by Presbytexs. Hifl. Wald. L
I. c. 5. 'vid. T'huan. L ^. A. D. 1550.
' The RecioY fays, that the Brethren of Bohemiay ^ fufpeding the Validity of Ordination by Presbyters, ^ fent unto the Waldenfes M. Znmburgius and two o^ ^ thers, who were created Bifhops by Stephen the * IViildenfmn Bifhop and another Bifhop.
Anf. That the Waldenfian Bifhops were only the fenior Paftors, to whom, for Order's fake, the Power of Ordination was committed, will appear from the enfuing Remarks,
I. Becaufe Was their received Do<5lrine, that all Clergy are in a State of Purity. Confeff. of Faith, Art.$.
JEneas Sihiusy who wrote a Book of their Do- drine, tells us, "That they ajprin the Roman Bifiop to be equal to other Bfjhops, and that between Priefls there s no difference. Boh, Hifl. de Va. Dogin.
Nauclerus reprefents 'em faying, I'hat all Priefls are ^equal, Chr, Vol, 2.
This was the Dodrine of J- Wicklif and of the Bo- hemians, who were enlighten'd by his Books. The Ta- bor ites in their Confeflion fay. That the conferring ofOrr ders only by Bijhops, is not from Scripture, but from the Cuflom of the Church.
The Bifhops they received from the Waldenfes were
H I made
1 o ^ An Ahridgmmt of
made by two of their titular Bifhops and fome Pres- byters, which fliews they were not of a fiiperior Or- der, for Presbyters can't make Biftiops of the EngUJb Species.
One of the Articles againfl; "John Hufs, the Bohemian Martyr was, that he affirms that aU P/iefls are of like power.
2. That the WaUenfes had no Diocefan Bifhops, i$ cv^ident from their own Teftimony ; as Perrin proves out of the Book of the Paftors, George Maurel and Peter Mafcon^ who give this Account of their Difci- pline, vtz>.
That the WaUcnfian Bifiops were only the Senior Paftors, who had no Power oyer other Minifters, nor to put forth any Ad of Government without the Appi'obation of their Brethren. Hi ft. Wald, i. lo.
3. That they had no Bifliops in our Adverfaries Scnft, appears from Father PauW Defcription of 'em.
He fays. They had certain Minifters (not Bifhops) oj their ozcn, ti)hom they called Payors. And that they- agreed in Dodrines and Rites with thofe of Genevay by reafon of which Argument they united with 'em. And we prefume, our Enemies will not affirm that there ^re any Prelatical Bifhops among the Geneva Clergy, Hi ft. of C. of Trent. I ^.adA. D.i^ 5p.
4. That they had no Bifhops, may be further evi- denc'd from th^ir Ordinations here in England, which were by Presbyters. J^Valfingharn faith. That their presbyters created nezu Presbyters ; affirming, that every Prieft had a£ great a Power of Binding or Loojing^i and per- forming all other Ecdejiaflical ABs, as the Pope himfelf hath or can give. Hi ft. Angl.p. 339. ad A- D- 1389. "^
A' D' 1 40 1. One of their Minifters, who was burnt at Smithjidd, was called a Falfe Presbyter, becaufe not ordain'd by Bifhops. Waif, 364.
In the Year 141 4, William Cleydon, a Presbyter a- mong the Lollards, made his owq Sgn a Priefl. Ibid Hfl, Ang,p. 390.
Mr.
Mr. J. Owen'? Tlea. 105
Mr. Willi Am Swinderby, an eminent and learned Con- feilbr, in the Sentence pafs'd upon him by the Bifhop of Herefordy is faid to be a pretended Prieft, /. c?, be- caufe his Ordination was by Presbyters and not by Bifhops. AEi. & Mon. ad. A. D. 1 391.
Mr. IV. T'hoYp was by the Lollards fent to preach ; but the Archbifliop of Canterbury tells him. No Eijlop would admit him to do it, unlefs fent and licensed by \in Ibid. ad. J. iji^. p. ^i^, ^16'
Letters of Licenfe from the Bifhops were invented here about this Time to obftrufl the Courfe of the GofpeJ.
John Purveyy a learned Writer againft Popery in thofe Days fays, T'/uit euery holy Man who is a Mini- fter of Chrifi, is a true Pneft ordain d of God, tho no Mi- tred Bifhop ever lay his CharaEler upon him- AB- & Mon*
We read of four Presbyterian Minillers in their fa- mous Congregation at Hamerfiamy who all died Mar- tyrs for the Truth.
If they had been ordain d by Bifbops, they muft have been degraded, before the fccular Arm cou'd reach em.
Now therefore, for any to affirm, that thofe Wal- denfes, and their Followers, had Diocefan Bifhops, is egregrioufly to impofe upon the World. Among whom we rank Mr. Gipps and Rainerius the Monk.— Here let me add one Paflage out of Rainer. about thefe Waldenfes ; he fays, T'bey were more pernicious to the Church of Rome than any other SeSi for three Reafons :
1. Becaufe more lafting; for fome fay that they ' liave been ever lince the Time of Sihefler -, and others
fay from the Time of the ApolHes. If this Accmint be true, the Waldenfes were not only 500, but 1.500 Tears without Bijhops.
2. Becaufe more general; fcarce a Country into which they had not crept.
5. Becaufe other Scdts are abominable to God for
H 4 elicit
104 ^^ Abridgment of
their Blafphemies ; but '■his of the fVaUenfes only carries with it a great Shew of Piety, bepaufe they live jullly before Men, and believe truly of God, and all the Articles of the Creed, only they h^te the Church of Rome.
Chap. II.
The Jevvifh Church ?20t the firfi efiablijh^d Churchy as the Recior would have it. The Levitical Priejihocd no Patera for Gofpel-Mim/lers/ CI. Romanus vindicated. The ReBor'^s Oligarchical Church animadverted upon. His Eight Inflames of Ordination without Preshjters confider'*d and confuted.
THE PMoy tells us, ' That the Church of the ' ^ews was the firft eftablifh'd Church in the 5 World that we know of. p. i.
Arf. I. Had God no Church in the World for a- bout 2450 Years, till the Law was given upon Mouyit Sinai ? Were there no worfhipping Congregations be- fore Mofeis Time ? Was it not the Degeneracy of the Sons of God, the vifible Church of God at that Time, that caus'd the Dduge ?
2. Did Noahy the Father of the New World, efla- blifh no Church among his numerous Poiterity ? We read indeed, that they foon degenerated, but that's an Argument they had been a Covenant-People. Gen. 11.'
:;. Was there no Church eftablifh'd in Ahraharns Pious and Princely Family ? Did he not ered Altars for Sacrifice, and call upon the Lord \vhere-ever he came? Geu. 14. i4r and 23. 6.
Were not his Infant Ssed admitted by Circumci- fion into the vifible Church? Pid Melchiz>ede.ckKing
of
Mr. J. Owen'j- "Pica. 105
pf Sakm^ who was Priefl of the MofI High God, take no care to eflablifh a Church among his Subjeds ? * The Je-jjjjh Church was govern'd by a High-
* Prieft, inferior Priefts and Le'vites^ fays the Redor.
Anf. I' Here's the Reafon of the Blunder about the Exiftence of a Church before Mofes.
The Redor is loth to own any Church before that of the Jeirs^ becaufe he does not read of any Subordinate Priefts till then ; which, if true, wou'd mightily favour his Hypothefis, that Diocefan Bi- fliops are efTential to a Church.
2. The High-Prieft, Prieft, and Levites, are not the Model for Gofpel-Churches.
3. The Jewijh High-Prieft was a Type of Jefu« Chrift^ the High-Prieft of our Profeflion, and confc- qliently is without a Succeflbr-
4. This is the great Popifh Argument for the Popes Supremacy, becaufe the Jews had one Chief-Prieft, therefore the Chriflians muft have one Chief-Bifhop. See Bellarmine de Rom' Pontif. i. 9.
Let the Bifhops produce as clear a Charter for their Order, as the High-Priefts did for theirs, and we will fubmit.
' Clemens Romanus (fays the ReElor) feems to make *■ this a Precedent for the Government of Chriftian
* Churches by a Bifhop, Presbyters and Deacons;
* the firft anfwering the High-Prieft, the fecond the
* inferior Priefts, and the third the Levites,
Anf, All this is falfe, for Clemens no where fays.
That there were Bifhops, Priefts and Deacons, as three diftind Officers and Orders.
Nor. does he fay that the Bijhop anfwer'd the Hfgh-Priefly &c. 'tis true, he mentions High-Priefts, Priefts and Levites, and a little after Bifhops and Dea- cons under the Gofpel, which (as he fays) were infti- tilted by the Apoftles.
He mentions but two Orders of the New Tefta- ment Officers, BiJhoi>s and D^acom- There were fe-;
veral
io6 An Abridgment of
veralBifliops in the C(>rimhtanC\\\irc\\y (whom Clemens calls Presbyters) as there was in the Phtlippian Church, Phil. I. 1. but he nowhere mentions any Chief Bifhop there. On che contrary, he affirms that the Preshy ters ferformd the Duties of their Efifcopacy — m' ^^^ r^
Clemens exhorts the Corinthians to be fubjed to their Presbyters? i.W<>]«y^T« ror? v^iT/ivTi^t^,
Nay, further, he fays. Even our Apojlles underflood hy Jefus Chriji that there woud be Strife about the Name of Efifcofacy ; for this very Reafon therefore^ having per* feB Knowledge thereof before hand, they ordain d the irfure^- faid officers i. e. B^Jho'ps and Deacons, tn Xca^ tfui 'sfec' ricvo-
* It's manifeft, adds the Redor, that Chrift mo-
* del'd his little Flock according to this Pattern ; him^ ^ fdf being as it were the High Priefty the 1 2 Apoftles ^ his Seconds, and the 70 Difciples ftill of a lower
* Rank.
Anf. I. Is it manifefli that Jefus Chrift was but as It were the High Pnefl ? This makes a pleafant Sound in the Ears of a Soctnian.
The Author to the Hebrevis tells us, he had a real friefthood, and that he was and is rhe High Priejl of our Profeffton.
2. Is it manijejl, that the 12 Apoftles were under Chrift as the Priefts under the Chief Priefts > J trow TiOt. That they were under him none queftions ; fcut not as Priefts, neither in a Proteftant or Popifti Senfe. The Number of 12 has no relation to the Prieftliood, the Priefts were divided into 24 Orders and not into 1 2. i Chron. 24.
3. It is mantfefty that the 72 Difciples anfwer'd the Levites ?
The Learned Aflertors of Prelacy make 'em to an- fwer the 72 Elders, (who were not a Bench of infe- rior Levites) under Mofesy who was no High Prieft) the fupreme Power was lodg'd in em, which he'll
fcarce
'Mr.]. Ov/^n sTlea. 107
fcarce allow the Presbyters, much lefs the Deacons, whom the 70 Difciples reprefented according to the Redor's Parallel. * He feem'd, fays the Rcdor, to leave his Church
* in a State of Oligarchy^ or in the Power of 1 2.
A^if. The Writers of Politicks fay, that Oligarchy is the Corruption of Anftocracy. Burgerfdicius defcribes it to be the Oppreffion of the Multitude by a few of the Nobles. And did our Lord leave his Church in fuch a Srate }
*■ Neither, fays he, did Chrift commit the Power
* unto the 1 2 'emfekes, but was wholly filent therein. Hoiii then came they by it ? He adds, by Order of Nature^ one wQud think.
Anf. And truly one woud think the Redor were in a Dream, when he makes the Apoftles to govern the Church by an ufurped Power which Chrift never committed to them.
V/e'Jl now confider his Scripture Inftances of Or- dination without Presbyters.
I Inflame,
1. His firft Inftance of Ordination in ASis i. wc are not concerned in ; uniefs it be to obferve, th^t if Matthiod was ordain'd, as he faith he was, 'tis ar| Inftance of Ordination without Impofition of Hands.
II Inftance.
* 2. The next is the Ordination of the 7 Dea*
* cons, ABs 6. They were, faith he, dz&gnd to diftrir
* bute the publick Alms unto the Poor ; the multi-
* tude of Believers chofe em, the Apoftles approved ' 'em, and appointed em over that Bufincfs, by Faft-
* ing and Prayer, and laying on of Hands, v, 6, *■ whereby alfo they became ordain'd to the Miniftry.
Anf. It's obfervable here,
I- He acknowledges the People's Right to chufc their Minifters, tho' he does not tell us why they are depriv'd of it.
2. He owns thefe 7 Deacons were to ferve the
Poor,
io8 An Ahridgment of
Poor, but adds, their Ordination for that Bufinefs made em alfo Minifters. But this is a great Miftake, as will appear by the 7 enfuing Reafons. L I. Becaufe the Apoftles found it too difficult to ferve the Poor and attend the Minilby, AEls 6. 2, 5, 4. ^7iS not reajon we fioud leave the Word of God and jerve "lablesy "wherefore look out among you feven Meuy 'whom we may appoint over this Bufinefs-', but we will give curfelves continually to Prayer, and to the Miniftry of the Word,
So that the Miniflry of the Word and the Serving of Tables are diftind Offices — If Serving of Tables was a hinderance to the Afoftles Miniltry, wou*d it not be fo to the Deacons ?
1. The occafion of chufing Deacons was the Ne- ceffity of the Poor, the People chofe 'em not to preach, hut ferve Tables. There's not one Syllable of their Ordination to the Miniftry of the Word.
5. Ability y or Aptnefs to teach, is not mention'd among the Qualifications of Deacons, as 'tis in thofe of a Bijlop, I T'im, 3. The Apoilie diftinguifhes the Bijhop from the Deacon by this MukI^kU apt to teach, which is not requir'd in the Deacons.
4. The Vlth General Council of Conftantinople held A. D. 6p2. in which were 166 Bijhops, acknowledges the Scripture-Deacons to be no more than Overfeers of the Poor, and that this was the Senfe of the Fa- thers of former Ages. Can. 1 6.
5. About the middle of the Vth Age, the Deacons in cafes of urgent Neceffity were permitted to read Homilies in the Church.
6' If the Ordination ef 'em as Deacons, made 'em Minifters of the Word, how comes the Church to or- dain 'em again •>
7. How comes their Ordination to ferve 'fables, to make 'em alfo Preachers } They may as well fay, the Ordination of a Parifh Prieft makes him a Dio- ^efan Bilhop.
But
Mr. J. Ow€nVTlea. i