,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)00QQ3 Q0gOQ0Q 00QQ 3QCQQQ 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 o 9 
 
 But ht us hear the Reafons. 
 
 'Tis faid, Stepheny one of 'em, did great Wonders, 
 1;. 8,1^- 
 
 Anfw. 'Tis not faid he preach'd, but difputed in the 
 Synagogue, which any private Man might do, v. p. 
 I Pet. 3. 15. 
 
 'Tis further urg d, that Philipy one of 'em, after- 
 wards preach'd at Samaria. 
 
 Anj, While at Jcrufalem he cxercis'd the OfEce of a 
 Deacon, AEls 8. 4, 5. and then might be advanc'd to 
 the Degree of an Evangelifl ; and Bifhop Pearfon fays 
 he really was fo at this time he preach'd. LeB, V. in 
 AB- p- 66. 
 
 Philip preach'd as a Mimpr, and not as a Deacon, 
 and if he had done otherwife it is but what was ufu- 
 ally done by gifted Men in thofe extraordinary times. 
 
 Crotius quotes AEls ii. 20. for private Perfons 
 preaching in thofe times of Perfecution. inAEls 8.5. 
 
 Hilaript^ the Deacon fays, that in the beginning of 
 Chriftianity all were permitted to preach and explain 
 the Scriptures, i-Cor, 14. 24. — m Eph.^, 
 
 Thus Apollos did, tho' not baptiz'd with the Bap- 
 tifm of Chrift, and therefore not then ordain'd by the 
 Apoftles, ABs 18.24, 25. 
 
 Origen preach'd without Ordination, and fo do the 
 Fellows of Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge fome- 
 times, as I have been inform'd. 
 
 ' Presbyters cou'd not ordain, fays the Redor, be- 
 ^ caufe Philip the Deacon cou'd not confer the Holy 
 ' Ghofl: on the Believing Samaritans^ p. 7, 8. 
 
 Anf. No more can the Bifhops confer the Holy 
 Ghoft. 'timothp T'lttiSy and other Evangeiifls had 
 Power to ordain, but not of giving the Holy Ghoft. 
 Befides, Dr. Hammond and feveral others, think that 
 Confirmation only is intended there, and the Redor 
 inclines to it. 
 
 III. Inflame. 
 
 [ He finds another Ordination A^s p. 17. where 
 
 'tis 
 
i I o An Abridgment oj 
 
 'tis faid that Ananias laid his Hands u^on Saul; this 
 might be to ordain him. 
 
 Anf, According to this Hypothefis, Saul was or- 
 
 dain'd before he was baptiz d ,• that isy he is firft 
 
 made an Apofiky then a Chriflian, And this is fufficr- 
 
 ent to expofe this Inflance as impertinent. ^ 
 
 IV Inftance, 
 
 * The next he confiders, is the Ordination in ABs 
 
 * ig. I, 2j g. Now there were in Antioch certain Pro- 
 
 * phets and Teachers, and the Holy Ghofl: faid iin- 
 
 * to *em, Separate me Barnahas and Saul. The Per- 
 ' fons here fpoken of were Teachers, i. e. Ordinary AH- 
 
 * niftersy but call'd Prophets, becaufe they received this 
 
 * fpecial Command from Chrift to ordain Barnabas 
 
 * and SauL 
 
 AnJ. What the Ref^or advances under this Head 
 is fo .little to the purpofe, that I might juftly over- 
 look it ; however, I'll annex a few Remarks, left his 
 Friends fhou'd think him flighted. 
 
 Mr. Owen from this Text, argu'd that Presbyters 
 have Power to ordain ; for the Orda'iners were leach^ 
 ers and Prophets, who according to Mr. Gipps himfelf, 
 were Ordinary Miniflers. 
 
 The Ordainers here were "Teachers or Presbyters. 
 Either this Ordination is a Precedent to us or not. 
 If not, how can we be fure that thofe of 'timothy and 
 *fitHit or any other, be fo ; if it be a Precedent, as 
 the Learned affirm, then Presbyters (here called teacb^ 
 ers) have Power to ordain. 
 
 The Text does not tell us who, or whether any 
 prefided, but the Commiffion for Presbyterial Teach- 
 ers to ordain is in exprefs Terms. Take Prophets 
 in what Scnfe you pleafe, it alters not the cafe, fince 
 they did not act in their Ordinations as Prophets, 
 or extraordinary Officers, but as Teachers. 
 
 Pr()p/;^^j-,accord!ng to the common Acceptation of the 
 Word, is to predict Things to come. Now the Gift of 
 foretelling future Events did not properly conftitute 
 
 a 
 
Mr. J. Owen'i Tka. 1 1 1 
 
 a different Order of Men; for Women as well as Men 
 prophefied, but I prefume it will not be allow'd that 
 they might ordain as Propheteffes. ABs 21. p. 
 
 In a Word, let 'em be what they will, 'tis fufficient 
 that here is an inftance of Presbyters Ordaining, and 
 that by the Authority of the Holy Ghofl. 
 V Inftance. 
 
 * The Ordination mentioned -<^^j 14. 25. were by 
 
 * Apoftles and not by Presbyters ; faith he, they or^ 
 
 * Jaind Elders [Presbyters] in every Churchy i, e, they 
 
 * the Apoftles alone without Presbyters. 
 
 Anf. Good reafen why, becaufe they were new 
 gathered Churches that had no Minifters in em, till 
 conftituted by the Apoftles. Presbyters could not 
 ordain before they had a Being 
 
 They ordain'd Presbyters in every Church ,• not 
 one but many, and why not Bifhops alfo ii they had 
 been neceflkry. 
 
 *Tis evident there were none at this time. 'Tis as 
 evident from this Inftance, that the Apofiles left the 
 Churches under the Government of thefe Presbytersy 
 without fuperior Bijhops. How come the Apoftles not 
 to ordain Bifhops in every Church ? If they had been 
 neceffary, doubtlefs they wou*d have done it. 
 
 But they intended to return to vifit em again, and 
 then appoint Bifliops for their SuccefTors. 
 
 Anf. That's falfe, for Paul commits the Care of 
 the Ephejtan Church to the Presbyters there, when he 
 took his laft leave of 'em, and afTur'd *em by the In- 
 fallible Spirit they fhou'd fee his Face no more. ABs 
 20. 17. 28. V. 25. / know ^ ye Jhallfee my Face no more. 
 Can any thing be more pofitive } How comes he then 
 not to leave a fuperior Bifhop over thefe Presbyters 
 as his SuccefTor.^ No Inftance can be given in all the 
 New Teftament of the . Apoftles ordaining a fingle 
 Perfon to fucceed 'em as a fixed Officer in the Go- 
 vernment of any one Church when they took their 
 laft leave of it. 
 
 . * When 
 
1 1 2 An Abridgment of 
 
 When Paul left 'Timothy at Ephefusy he intended to 
 come again, and that fliortly. i Tim. 3. 14. 
 
 As for Jitusy after he had ordain'd Presbyters to 
 govern the Cretian Churches, the Apoftle calls him a- 
 vvay and direds him to come to Nicopolis. Tiu 3. 12. 
 
 But thefe Elders were fiibjed: to the Apoflles '^ 
 
 Anf\ And were not Bifliops equally fubject to the 
 Apoftles ? Were the Elders fubordinate 10 the A- 
 pofties, fo were 'timothy and Titus \\\s fuppofed Bi-» 
 fhops. The Epiflles direded to 'em are convincing 
 Evidences of their Subordination to Paul, who writes 
 'em in an Authoritative Style, i. Tim i. 18. cir 4. 6. 
 & 6. 1 3, 14. 2 Tiyn. 4. i, 5>, 1 3. Bifhop Timothy is order- 
 ed to bring his Cloak and perfonally to attend the 
 Apoftle, which is a. iign of his Subje*^ion to him. 
 
 Therefore all the Reafonings from the Subordina- 
 tion of Presbyters to the Apofties are impertinent ; 
 for Timothy and Titm, the fuppofed Bifhops of the 
 New Teftament, were fubordinate to the Apofties. 
 So that i( Presbyters had no Governing Power, no 
 more had Bifhops, for thefe were under the Apofties 
 alfo. 
 
 VI Inftance. 
 
 * In Acls ip. (5. he finds an Ordination, in which 
 ^ Paul only laid Hands on 1 2 Perfons at Ephefus, and 
 
 * not Timothy and Eraftus, who were with Paul at 
 
 * this time. ABs 19. it, p. ij. 
 
 Anf, 'Tis not faid Timothy and Erafius were with 
 Paul when he laid Hands on thofe 12 Men : v. 22. 
 {peaks o^ Paul's fending 'em to Macedonia, which was 
 about two Years after. Acls i p. 10. 21, 22. . 
 
 2. But fuppofe they had been with him ; Paul laid 
 Hands on thofe 1 2 Men to confer the Gift of the Holy 
 Ghofi,and not Ordination,fo Ads ip.6. And when Paul laid 
 his Hands upon 'em, the Holy Ghofi came on 'em, and they 
 fpake with Tongues and prophefied. Now Timothy 2L\\d. 
 Erafius cou'd not confer this extraordinary Gift ; 
 therefore did not lay on Hands. This Power was: 
 
Mr. J. Owen J Tlea. i i ^ 
 
 peculiar to the Apoftles. Ananias's Cafe \ras fingular^ 
 and depended on a particular Revelation. 
 
 3. If there b^ aiiy Force in this Argument, it ex- 
 cludes Bifbops alfo from the Power of Ordination, 
 fince they can't confer the Gifts of the Holy Ghofl, 
 which were given by the Apoftles Hands. Belides, 
 if "timothy was a Bifhop, why did not Vmd joyn him 
 in that Ordination, if he was then prefent ? 
 VII Inflnnce, 
 
 ^ The Reilov thinks that the Corinthian Elders had 
 
 * no Power of Excbmmunication. Paul, fays he, 
 
 * decreed it, and commanded em to confirm and 
 
 * pubrifh it. I Cor. 5. 3,4^ 5. * 
 
 ^nf. If they had no Power to excommunicate, why 
 does the %\.poftle reprove em for cot doing it ? i 
 Cor. 5. 2. Te are puft tip and have not rather mourn dy 
 that he who has done this Deed might be taken aivay front 
 among yoti. 
 
 How ? by Ex commtini cation. Therefore directs 'em 
 \yhen they were gather d together — to deliver fuch an 
 One toSataUy "y. 4, 5. and further, he enjoyns 'cm to 
 purge out this old Leven, to avoid diforderly Walk- 
 ers, and to judge them that are "within, v. 7, i g , 1 4. 
 
 To Judge is to' Decree, as: the Rcdor expounds it 
 in X'. ^. fo that according to his own Interprctationf 
 the Elders had Power to Decree an Excommuni- 
 cation. 
 
 I don't know why Vresbyters fhou'd be dehyM the 
 Power of Excommunicating, when *tis freq.iently 
 granted Lay-Men in the Bifoop's Court, where th^ Lay- 
 Man decrees and pafles Sentence againft the Offen- 
 der, and then fends it to the Par/on of the Parilh to 
 be read in the Church, which his Ciark or any other 
 Parifhioner may do as well as himfelf, without Ulurp- 
 ing the Rights of the Miftiftry as much as* the Lay- 
 BiJIjop docs. 
 
 . If my Lord the Bifhop can delegate his i^ovcrnin^ 
 Power to a Lay-man, why not his ordaining Power ? 
 
114 A Vindication oj \ 
 
 If Lay-Chancellors may be impower'd to govern the 
 Church, why not to ordain Minifters ? fince Govern" 
 ment is as much a part of the Minifterial Office as 
 Ordination is. 
 
 * The fame Apoftle, fays Mr. Gips^ excommunlca- 
 
 * ted Hymeneus and Alexander, no Elder joyning with 
 *^him. I 7/w. I. 20. />. 17. 
 
 Anf. it can't be prov'd there were any Elders in E- 
 fhefus at this time ; or i£ there were, that they did 
 not joyn with him. 
 
 But if the Apoftle did it himfcif by his Apoftolical w 
 Power, I fee no advantage the Adverfaries can make^ I 
 of it, extept they can prove that Bifhops are endu'd 
 with the fame Apoftolical Power. 
 
 .Vllllnflance, p. i^. 
 
 * He notes from 2 T/»/. 1.6. That T'imothy \v2ls or- 
 
 * dain'd by Paul without Elders mentioned. This 
 
 * Scripture, fays he, 'the Presbyterians feldom take 
 
 * notice of. Mr. Tryn paifes it over in filence- 
 
 Anf^ That's falfe, for Mr. Tryn does mention it, and 
 allows that Taul laid on his Hands in Conjundion 
 with the Presbytery. Unhijh. of I'im. & Ttt. /. jS- 
 Edit. 1660. 
 
 Mr. Oilmen alfo confider'd this very Scripture, and. 1 
 obferv'd that TauVs laying on of Hands upon "Timothy ' 
 might be for conferring the Holy Ghoft, which was 
 given by the laying on of the Apoftles Hands. Plea, 
 p. 45. If he laid Hands for Ordination, 'tis certain 
 he joyn'd the Presbyters with him, which fhews they 
 had an inherent Power of Ordination, i firH. 4. 14. 
 
 ^ But the Redor prom is'd to fhew, i Tim. 4. 14. 
 
 * makes little or nothing for Presbyterian Ordinati- 
 
 * on. The Words are thefe ; NegleEl not the Gift 
 
 * that is in thve, which zoas given thee by Trophecy, vjitir 
 
 * the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. 
 
 Anf As we think, this is a clear Initance for Or- 
 dination by Presbyters ; no, fays he, it makes little or 
 nothing for it. But let us hear his Proof, which he 
 attempts by four Things. I. ' He 
 
Mr. J. Owen'i Ttca. 1 1 5 
 
 / * t. He fays, 'timothy was ordain'd firft a Presby* 
 
 * ter by Prophecy with the Presbytery, and then a 
 < Bifiiop by FauL How Hoes he prove this Z IVhy ^ 
 
 * Faul was ordain'd twice, firfl a Miniftcr of xhi 
 
 * Word in ordinary, then unto the Apofllefhip of 
 *. the Gentiles, j>. 20. ^ 
 
 AnJ. J . This is falfe. How came the Rector to (^ 
 Taul was but an ordinary Minifter at firft, when 
 Faul reckons himfelf one of the Apoftles from the 
 time of his Converfion. GaL 1. 15, i<5, 17. To reveal 
 his Son in me that I might preach him among the Heathem 
 neither went I tip to Jerufalem (i. e. immediately upon 
 his Converfion) to them who were Apoftles before me. This 
 implies, he was an Apoftle himfelf at that time. 
 
 'Tis ftrange how any Man can call St. Faul an or- 
 dinary Minifter, who had the extraordinary Gifts of 
 the Spirit, and was reputed to be one of the Chjef 
 Apoflles I JEis 9- I J, 
 
 Was he but an ordinary Minifier, who received the 
 Gofpel by extraordinary Revelation} Gah i. 12. Bi- 
 fhop Fear/on owns Faui to be an Apoftle before the 
 Miflion mention'd in AEls 15. i, 2. Annal. p. 2. & LeSi, 
 in Acl> Apofi,p. 74, 75. So does Eufebius^ Ecci Hi ft. 2. i- 
 
 2. Faul was fent by Revelation unto the Gentiles 
 before the Ordination mention'd Afis ig. as appears 
 from ABs 22. 18, 21. 
 
 By that Ordination he only enter'd upon the fia- 
 ted Exercife of his Apoftolical Miniftry aniong the 
 Gentiles at the Door of Ordination, and that by 
 Presbyters, for a Prefident of Ordination totheGen-J 
 tile Churches. Now, if Fresbyters may lay Hands up-^ 
 on an Apoftle^ much more on Inferior Mini fiers. 
 
 3. He allows that "timothy was made a Fresbyter by 
 IFresbytersy but does not prove tj^at he was made Bi- 
 jCiop by Faul 
 
 ' Nor does it appear any where that Faul was twice 
 ordain'd. He was call'd to the Work in an extraor- 
 dinary manner, but God wou'd have him now enter 
 iat the com.mon Door, /. e. by Ordination. ii 
 
 / 
 
1 1 6 A Vmdicallon 4J 
 
 ^ II. If 'timothy was ordain'd but once, then, faith 
 
 * he, by Vrophecy fignifies by Prophets, and thefe Pro- 
 
 * phets were Paul and Si las ^ 
 
 * The Presbyters mentioned here, might have been 
 
 * Prophets too, and ordain*d Tmothy according to 
 ' Prophecy. />. 21, 22. 
 
 <Jnf, Let's fee how the Words run with the Reclor's 
 xplication. NegleEi not the Gift that is in thee, which 
 was given thee by Prophets, with the laying on of the 
 Hands of the Prophets^ Profound Senfe ! 
 
 2. By Prophecy we underftand, the Prophecies that 
 went before of Tiniothy. i Tim. i. 18. But who thcfe 
 Prophets were, the Text h filent. 
 
 IIL ^ The Word Presbytery, fays he, is borrowed 
 
 * from the Jewifh Church : Mofes took the Heads of the 
 
 * 1 2 Tribes to be aiTiftant to him in the Government, 
 ' unto thefe anfwer'd the 1 2 Apoftles ; but at length 
 
 * God commanded him to chufe 70 Elders. Numb. 
 
 * II. 16' p. 23. 
 
 Anf I. The Red:or in /. i. made Chrift and the 
 1 2 Apoftles to anfwer to the High-Priefl and Inferi- 
 or Priefts, and in/. 2. faid it was manifeft it was fo : 
 but now by a new Manifeflation he tells us the 1 2 
 Apoftles anfwered the Heads of. the 12 Tribes. 
 
 2. Where is it found that Mofes took the Heads of 
 the 1 2 "Tribes ^ to be his Affiflants in the Government, be- 
 fore the 70 Elders were chofen ? Mofes himfelf gives 
 a different Account. He governM alone, till upon 
 yethro's Advice he chofe not 1 2 Head« of the Tribes, 
 but Rulers of Thoufands, Rulers of Hundreds, of 
 Fifties and of Tens. Exod. 18. 15, 2yDeut, i. 15. 
 
 3. The 70 Elders to whom the Presbytery anfwcrs, 
 were, by theReftor's Confeflion, chofen to be Mofes's 
 Jffiftants in the Government. If fo, then Presbyters 
 have Power of Government. 
 
 The Jewifli Sanedrin was intrufted with the Power 
 of Ordaining Elders. Now if the Presbytery anfwers 
 the Sdnedrtny as the Redor o^^Tls it does, then the 
 
Mr. J. Owen's Tlea. 1 1 7 
 
 daining Power belong.^ to it. The Reftri(ftIon was 
 not till the time of Hi I lei. 
 ' The Redor adds, that every Apoflle in his Plan- 
 
 * tation, had his Presbyteries in the Cities where he 
 
 * had fettled Churches, but that Apoftle was Head of 
 
 * *em. 
 
 Anf. I. Every conflituted Church had a Presbytery, 
 but no Apoflk calls the Presbytery of any Church, bis 
 Treslytery- 
 
 1' What ii two Apoflles fettl'd a Church in Con- 
 junction, as Vaul and Barnabas did many ? Whofe 
 then was the Presbytery ? Was it divided between 
 'em, or were they jovot Heads of it ? That can*t be, 
 fince one Church is]J^ow*d to have two Bifhops. 
 
 3. The Elders at Jemfakm had Apoftles, Prophets 
 and Evangeliils fuperior to 'em, A^s \ 5. 2. but we 
 don't find that they were fubjed to one more than 
 the other of 'cm. 
 
 4. Were not the Apoftles Heads of the Bifhops al- 
 fo ? Yes. Therefore the Apoftles Superiority over 
 Presbyters does not more diminifh their Power, than 
 their Superiority over Bifliops does diminifh theirs. 
 
 At length the Re(ftor grants, ^ That Timothy W2is 
 
 * ordain'd by the Presbytery, of which Faul was the 
 ^ principal Head. f. 25. 
 
 Anf. If the Apoftle joyn'd the Presbytery with 
 him in Ordination, as the Redor confefTeth he did, 
 'tis fufficient to prove. That Presbyters have an inherent 
 Power of Ordaining, which is all we plead for. 
 
 The Apoftle's being Prefident, makes no more for 
 Bifhops then Presbyters, fince neither of 'em pretend 
 to fucceed the Apoftles in their Apoftolick Power as 
 fuch. All our Presbyteries have a Prefident, or Mo- 
 derator, fro tempore, for Orders fake. 
 
 IV. The Redor fays, ' that Timothy was properly 
 
 * ordain'd by Prophets, in the Prefence or Witncfs, 
 
 * and with the Confenr of the Presbyters, f- 28. 
 
 Jnfiii llo\7 com^s Timothy to b^ ordain'd by Pro- 
 
 I 3 phccs 
 
1 1 § A JAndtcation of 
 
 phets here, when in p- \ 5. he faid, that he w^s or- 
 dain'd by the Presbytery ? 
 
 . The laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, fig^ 
 nifies more than their Pr^/^'/zc^', Confent SindJTttneJs ; 
 for the Prefence, IVitnefs and Confent of the People was 
 required, as heconfefles, but they never laid on Hands 
 in Ordination. 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 Timothy md Titus were EvArjgeliflsj no Prejiy 
 dent Officers. The Govefh^ent of the Ephefiaa 
 Church committed to Presbjlers ; the Perpetui* 
 ty of thh Government evidenced, Obje^fions ^- 
 gainji it mjweid. IgnatiusV Bi^op P^rochial^, 
 proved from his fappos'*d Writings. 
 
 ^ Q T Tauh in his Abfence from the Churches, as 
 
 O ' the Redor fays, p. 45. did not commit the Go- 
 
 ^ vernment to the Presbyteries in Parity, but appoint- 
 
 * ed One as Supreme to prefide over em in his Ab- 
 ' fence, and by confequence to fucceed him when he 
 
 * departed the World. This he did • in Ephefus and 
 
 * Crete^ and by Confequence in all his other Churches, 
 ^ and the reft of the Apoftlcsmuft be prefumed to do 
 5 the fame. 
 
 j^-af. I. If the Apqfile did not appoint One Treshy-^ 
 ter as Supreme to prejide over the reRy and to fucceed him 
 ■ijn the Government of the Tresbytersy then the Govenir 
 ment, hy his own Cpnfeflion, muft lodge in the Pres- 
 byrtr<:. In the Prelatical Church, Bifhops are diofeq 
 •iy\iz pt' the Presbyters. , 
 
 2, .The .Scripture gives no account that Timothy 2ind 
 
 Titus were prdain'd to be the Apoftk's Succeflbrs in 
 
 Epjiefus.'i^nj^ Crete ^ ^he^ were Evangeliflsy ^nd as fuch 
 
 ■ _ i fupe- 
 
Mr. J. Owen^ Tlea. 1 1 9 
 
 fiiperior to Bifhops. And can w6 think that thefe ex- 
 traordinary unlimited Officers were degraded to the 
 Station of ordinary fixed Paftors ? 
 
 3. The Apoftle in his Abfence committed the Go- 
 vernment of the Ephe/tan Church to the Presbyters. 
 A^s 20. 17, 18. 25. 28. 
 
 He now took his lafl: Leave of em ; and this was 
 a proper Seafon to mention his SuccefTor, but there's 
 not one Word of o. Jingle Per/on, to fucceed him in the 
 Pre/idency there over the Presbyters. 
 
 The whole Government of the Church is commit- 
 ted to the Presbyters of Ephefm ; and Taul adds, it 
 was confign'd to 'em by the Holy Ghoft, who made 
 'em Bifhops to rule the Church of God. AEls 20, 17,-28. 
 
 More particularly in this Presbyterian Eflabliftiment 
 at Ephejus without a fuperior Biiliop, 'tis obfervable, 
 
 1. It's a Divine Eftablifhment ; the Apoftle was 
 guided by the Holy Ghoil: in this Determination. 
 vid. 28. ibid. 
 
 2. It was the laft Settlement he intended to make 
 there, and therefore he tells 'em they fhouldy^^ hisFacs 
 nQ more. Ver. 2$, 
 
 3. 'Twas intended for a perpetual Eftablifhment, 
 not only in the Church of Ephefusy but in all other 
 Churches. That it was perpetual appears, becaufe 
 
 The Apoftle gave 'em his dying Thoughts, for he 
 pofitively tells 'em, he fhou'd fee their Faces no more. 
 If any therefore fay it was temporary, he ought to 
 prove it. 
 
 Befides, Taul in his Difcourfe with the Ephefian 
 Presbyters does not give the leaft Hint of any Bifhop 
 he had fet over 'em, or that he intended to itt one 
 hereafter j this therefore was the laft and determin- 
 ing Settlement. 
 
 4. No Reafon can be given why this Government 
 fhou'd be afterwards chang'd, fince 'tis here fettled 
 by him, with whom there is no Variablenefs nor Shi> 
 dew of turning. He is always in one Mind. 
 
 I 4 Three 
 
J ao A VindxccLtim of 
 
 Three Things urg'd by the Adverfary for ;hc 
 Change of this Government : 
 
 * T. That the Appftle committed tlie Goveritment 
 
 * of this Cliurch, /// tis ^^fence, unto thefe Presbyters 
 
 * (or Bifhops) FoYy fays the Rcdpr, riljuppoje at pre- 
 *■ fent th:it the ^Tith and Tower of Bijhops belong d to \m. 
 
 Anj\ Here's an Acknowledgment that the Govern- 
 ment of the Ephefian Church was at firft devolved up- 
 on the Presbyters therej but, Viu^j during his A^fcnce^ 
 fay they. 
 
 A' Be itfo; but his Ahjence was to be perpetual, if 
 any Credit be to be given to an infpired Perfon, who 
 tells 'em exprefly, / know ye fi all fee tny Face no 7nore. 
 ABs 20. 25. 
 
 ' 2. Tatil being fet at Liberty, or returning back 
 *^ from Italy to the £///?, and being npw old, and 
 ^ finding Divifions every where encreas'di, conftituted 
 "- T^imothy Bifliop of Bph^fiuh as doubtlefs he did in 
 ^ all other Places. 
 
 Anf Doubtlefs not a Word of all this is true, the 
 Divifions excepted j the Iniinuation, that the Epiflle 
 to T'imothy was written after VauVs Imprifonment at 
 Rome is falfe. The Scripture no where fays thit 
 Vaul conftituted T'imothy Bifhop of Ephefius- St. John 
 was there for fome Time after St. Paurs Departure, 
 fo that there was no need of a Bifhop, while an Apo- 
 iflle cou'd overfee the Church himfelf. E,ufeb* 3. 17, 18 
 Jren. adv. Har. 3. 
 
 * And that Taul made B/'JJjops in all other Places, is 
 what was never yet prov'd^ if by thcfe he means 
 Diocefans. 
 
 Here, he adds, ^ That T'lmothy left a Succeflbr, be- 
 ' caufe Chrifl direds his Meffage to xhc Angeioi the 
 ' Church in the lingular Number, arid not to the 
 ' Presbytery "in phe pkiral 
 
 Anf. The Word Angel is taken colledively for d. 
 Multitude, fo 'tis in Rev. 14. d^. / faw another Angel 
 ft) in themidn of HeazTriy I e. many Minifters. So 
 ' •• ■■ --■ Mat 
 
Mr. J. OwenV flea. 1 1 1 
 
 Mai. 2, 7. T^he Pnefts Lips (in the plural Number) 
 jbould keep Knowledge^ and they fiould feek the Law at his 
 Mouth, for he is the Mejfenger, — He, in the fin^ulat 
 Number, is the Mejfenger (or Angel as the LXX) oj 
 the Lord. Here all the Jewijh Priefls are fpoken of as 
 if they had been one fingle Man ; nay more, they are 
 call'd the Jngcl, juft as the Paftors of the feven A/tan 
 Churches are term'd- 
 
 Or thefe Angels might be Prefidents of thofe Pref- 
 byteries, becaufe they are confider*d cbere as the Di- 
 fpenfcrs of the Word and Sacraments, which is not 
 the OfEcc of a Diocefau Bifiiop, as diftind from Pref- 
 byters. 
 
 If by the Angels of the Afiatick Churches we un- 
 derftand their Diocefan Bifhops, then they are their 
 Bi/Iiops, who are exprefiy charged with all thefe Sins, 
 for which God threatens to remove their Candlc- 
 fticks, for the Declenfions there are imputed to the 
 Angels of the Churches. 
 
 To prevent fo invidious a Refledion, we fay, that 
 by Angels are not iinderilood any particular Men, 
 but the Paftors, and their Churches; and therefore 
 the Epiftles in the 2d and 3d of Revelations cud thus: 
 He that has an Ear let him hear what the Spirit f^th to 
 the Churches. Rev- 2. 7. 1 7. 29. — 
 
 By ^«^t/ therefore is not meant a fingje Perfon', but 
 ^ Multitude j upon which Account we find a Change 
 in the Number ,* fo' Rev. 2. 10. Fear none of thoja 
 'Jtijings which lthou']/halt fufer, behold the D^vil fiall caji 
 fome of [you] into Prifon, in the Plural Number. 
 
 Befides, the Word Angel does not import Jurifdi- 
 ftion and Government, which is appropriated to 
 Diocefans, but is a Name of Miniftry, and fignilies 
 a Meffenger or Servant, and fo every Minifter is an 
 Angel or Meffenger of the Church. 
 
 Again, there's no mention made of thofe AJiatkk 
 Angels, as an Order fuperior to Presbyters ; and till 
 this be prov'd, the 4rguinent drawn from em is itx- 
 cpnclufive. Ephe- 
 
1 ai A Vindication of 
 
 Ephefmy the firft of the feven Churches, had at this 
 Time a Presbytery of true Scriptural Bifliops fettled 
 in it. AEls 20. 17. 28. which is fufficient to overthrow 
 the Arguments drawn by Prelatifts from, the Apoca- 
 lyptical Angel. 
 
 ' 3. The third Reafon to prove the Change of 
 « Presbytery into Prelacy^ is taken from Ignatius s Epi- 
 
 * file to that Church, in which he Name$ Onefimiis 
 
 * their Bifhop ; and therefore 'timothy left an Epifco- 
 •"ipal SucceHbr. 
 
 ' A^f' If Ignatius be genuine, which is very doubt- 
 ful^ all that can be gathered from. him, is, the Name 
 of Bijhof, which the Holy Ghoft gives to all Presby- 
 ters in common,- in his Time began to be appropiat- 
 cd to the fenior Presbyter, who for Order*s-fake pre- 
 sided over the reft in their AHemblies, but without 
 any Power of Jurifdidion over his Brethren. And 
 when he died, the next to him fucceeded; tho* after- 
 wards, when the fenior Presbyter proving not fit for 
 the Place, they changed the SuccefTion by Seniority, 
 into that by Eledion, as Hilarius the Deacon affirms 
 in Ephef. 4. 
 
 The Presbyteries chofe the fitteft Perfon to be their 
 Moderator or Prefident, as is done in all the Pref- 
 byteries of the Reformed Churches. Now, that Pre- 
 Jident had no new Ordination, or Authority ; and 
 therefore primitive Bifhops were not of the fame Spe- 
 cies with the modern. 
 
 That this was the primitive Bifhop, is proved in 
 the Plea. 
 
 That Paul fix'd more than one Bifhop in a Church, 
 Phil I. I. AB.S 20. 28. and therefore congregational 
 Bifhops vv'-ere common before Ignatims Time i and 
 that JgnatiMis Bifhop, was but the Paftor of a Church, 
 or a Parochial Bifhop only, will evidently appear 
 from the enfuing Paffages taken out of his Epiftles. 
 In the Days of Ignatimy 
 ' f. The \^hole Dioc^fs met, together with the K- 
 
 ' ^' fhop. 
 
Mr.]. Owm'sTlea. ii^ 
 
 (hop, for publick Worftip, which {hews that it ex- 
 ceeded not the Bounds of a modern Parifh. M. Smyrn. 
 Edit. VoJ. p. 6. ad. Eph.p. 20, 35, 34. ad. Magn, FhiL 
 
 2. Baptifm was generally adminiftred by the Bi- 
 fhop within his Diocefs, which proves it to be Paro- 
 chial. Ad. Sntyrn- /. '6. 
 
 3. The Bifhop had but one Communion- Table in 
 his whole Diocefs, at which he adminiftred the 
 LordVSupper to his whole Flock ,• therefore they 
 were not very numerous. Ad, Vhil. p> 41. 7'ert, deCor. 
 Milit.f' 338. 
 
 4. No Marriages were made without the Bifhop. 
 Ad. Tcly. p. 13. 
 
 5. The Bifhop himfclf took Care of the Poor of 
 hh Diocds. Ad. Voly. p. 12, 13. 
 
 Now what Diocefan Bifhop can perform all the a- 
 bove-mention*d iV^^ts in his Diocefs, which perhaps 
 confifts of Hundreds of Pariflies ? But they are very 
 confiftent with the Duty of a Parochial Bi/hop, and 
 fuch a one Ignatims Bifiiop was, nay muft be. 
 
 The learned Mr. Boyfe of Dublin^ in his Account of 
 the anciem Ep/fcopacy, has, in my Judgment, put that 
 Matter beyond Difpute, if Demonftration may pafs 
 for Argument. Printed at London, 171 2. 
 
 ' But, fays the Redor, I'itus was left in Crete to 
 * ordain Elders in every City. 
 
 A.* T'itus wa.s an Evangelift, part of whofe Work 
 was to ordain ; but 'tis no where faid that Paul 
 made him Bifhop of Crete. He was foon fent from 
 thence to NicopoUs^ as "Tit. 3, 12. 
 
 After he went this time from Crete, we never read 
 of his returning thither again. But after this we 
 find him fent into Dalmatiay and we hear no more of 
 him. 2 TIw. 4. 10. 
 
 If I'imothy was not a Bifhop of Ephefns, no more 
 was T'ltus of Crete, for the Epiftles direded to both are 
 of the fame Strain, and were both Officers of the 
 fame Species, viz,, EvangeliftS' 
 
 C H A P. 
 
I 2 4* -^ Vindication of 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 *3riiP-0tby ffo Bijhof {of Ephefus) hut an Evange- 
 iij}. The Nature and Duration of the Evangelick 
 Office conjtder'^d, Dr, Pearfon'j Chronological 
 Scheme in Favour of Bifhop Timothy refuted. 
 Taul vprit his firji Epiflle to Timothy before his 
 hnfrifmimem at Rome, proved at large. The 
 Preshperial EJlablifljment at gpheCus, unalter- 
 able. 
 
 ^ npHE leading Argument, fays the Redor, for 
 A * 7imotbys being Bifhop of ^f/^^^y, isground- 
 
 * ed on I 7/w. i . 5 . 1 befought thee tfi abide ftill at E- 
 
 * phefus ichen I went to Macedonia. 
 
 Anf To abide ftill ^ does not imply a continued Re- 
 fidence ,* for the fame T'imothy is faid to abide ftill at 
 Bereay of which 'tis not as much as pretended that 
 he was Bifhop. AB^ 17. 14. 
 
 . But Silas and T'lmothy abode there ftill, /. e. at Be- 
 rea^ and yet, Verf. 15:. are fent for away. So that his 
 ftay there was but fliort.. See alfo i Cor. 16, 6,5. It 
 ?nay be 1 vjill abidey yeUy and Winter with you, — iV/ not 
 fee joit now by the Way, but I truft to tarry a while *-with 
 yQii. Here to abide, Signifies, to tarry a while, 
 
 2. That he was not fix'd as Refident at Ephefus, is 
 evident, becaufe the Apoftle calls him from thence to 
 Rome, and fent Ty^hicus, the Evangelift, to Ephefus^ 
 2 TI'w. 4» 9> 21. Do thy Diligente to come jhortly to me^ 
 X. e. at Rome, We don't read that 'timothy ever re- 
 turned to Ephefus again. Let the Adverfaries make 
 it out li they can. 
 
 And fuppofe he did return, of which there's not 
 one V/ord in Scripture, this would be of no ufe to 
 them, becaufe, 
 '^^ ■ ' 5. timo- 
 
Mr, J. Owen'j TUa. i a 5 
 
 ^: T'imothy was an Evangelift, 2 7/;;/. 4. 5. Do //;^ 
 ^Fo;^ of rt« ^vangeliR • but Bifhops arc not Evange- 
 lifts. Now, 
 
 Evangelilh were unfix'd Officers, fent by the Apo- 
 flles as their Collegucs to fiipply their Abfence in the 
 New-planted Churches, to guide the People, and their 
 ftated Paftors who were refident with 'em, during the 
 prefent Neceflity. i Cor. 3. 6. i Ccr. 16. 10. and 4. 17. 
 
 Thefe Evangelifts had Power to ordain Minifters^ 
 where there was need of em. Ephef. 6, 
 
 Thefe Evayigehfls were temporary Officers in the 
 Church, and ceafed with the Apoflles and Prophets. 
 So that if this be a leading Argument, 'tis a blind one* 
 
 * The Diflcnters, fays he, to avoid the Force of 
 
 * this Argument fay, that the firfl Epiftle to T'imothy 
 
 * was writ before the Meeting at Miletus, by which 
 
 * the Apoftle co|:Ermitted the Flock to the Ephefuin 
 
 * Elders, and ^6t to em. 
 
 j^nf. Not only the Diffenters fay that this Epiftle 
 was writ before the Congrefs at Miletus, but 'tis the 
 prevailing Opinion of moft Chronologers, the moft learn- 
 ed Aflerters of Epifcopacy not excepted, as Bilhop 
 HaU, Dr. Hammond, Grotius, Liid.CapelluSy Dr. Light- 
 jooty Gary; Gothofredus quotes j^thajtajsus, BaroniuSy a^ 
 of the fame Opinion. The Rhe?mfis were fenfible of 
 this, therefore don't deliver emfelves fo confidently 
 upon the Subjed as the ReBor does. 
 
 But let the Epiftle be written after, it does not pre- 
 judice our Argument from ^ifis 20. 17, 28. (vid.cap. 
 3.) nor can it do fo till exprefs Scripture be forbid to 
 pafs for Evidence. 
 
 * The Charaderiftick, adds he, of the precife time 
 
 * of Taul's befeeching Timothy to abide at Epbefus, 
 "■ is fetdown by P/7«/ himfelf, i 7/>«. i. 3. This was. 
 
 * fays Dr. Pearson, at any of thofe Times ot PauVs 
 
 * going into Macedonia, remembered in the A^s, and 
 ^ therefore 'twas after the Apoftles bid the Ephejlans 
 
 * farewel at Miletus, 
 
126 A T^indication of 
 
 Anf. Tho Luke in AEls 20. does not mention Tim(h 
 thys being left at Ephefus, 'tis enough that Paul men- 
 tions it, I 7/>»- 1' S. I hef ought thee to abide flill at. Efhe- 
 fusy "when I li^ent into Macedonia. 
 
 *Tis certain Luke does not mention all the Journeys 
 of Pauli and 'Timothy ; there are other Paffages omit- 
 ted by Lukey that are mentioned by Paul in his Epi- 
 flles to the Corinthians, Romans, T%eJJalonians, Timothy. 
 Thus Luke takes no Notice of Paul's being at Toas, 
 Illy ri cum, Arabia, 2 Cor. 2. 12. Rom, 15. i^.Gal. i. 17. 
 nor of Timothy s Journey to the Thcjjalonians. This \% 
 but what is ufual in Hifiories, for one Author to fup- 
 ply what is omitted by another. 
 
 So what is omitted by Luke is mention'd by Paul 
 to Timothy, viz. That he befought him to flay at Ephefiis, 
 I Tim. I. 3. Luke no where mentions Titus, Paul's 
 Companion^ whom the Apoftle fo often mentions in 
 his Epiflles. 
 
 ' Paul, after his Releafe from his Imprifonment at 
 
 * Rome, continues the ReElor, went back to vifit the 
 
 * Eaftern Churches. — In his PafTage by Crete, he 
 
 * planted a Church there, for no other Time caq be 
 « afTign'd for it but this, /^. 87. 
 
 Anf. All this is confidently afErm'd, but here's no 
 Proof that he viCit^d the E^hefian Church after his Im- 
 prifonment at Rome, 
 
 As for Paul's vifiting of Crete, the learned Lightfoot 
 afligns another Time, and that was when he return- 
 ed from Macedonia to Greece, AEls 20.2. and then he 
 left Titus there. Tit. i. 5. 
 
 ' The Redor wou'd make Jerom fay, that 'twas 
 
 * decreed in the Apoftles Time, that one eleded out 
 
 * of the Presbyters, who before govern d the Church 
 
 * in common, was fet over the reft, and that the De- 
 
 * cree was occafion'dby the Corinthian Schifm./'.pi.2 2. 
 
 Anf. Jerom no where fays that tiie Superiority of 
 Bifliops was decreed in the Apoftles Time ; after he 
 has proved the Identity of Bifliops and Presbyters, he 
 
 * adds. 
 
Mr. J. Owen'i-P/m, 117 
 
 adds, Qiiod astern po/Iea."- That afterwards, /. e, 2fter 
 the Apoftles Time, one Presbyter was chofen and 
 fct over the. reft, as a Remedy againft Schifm. 
 
 In St. Paul's Epiftles to the Corinthians there's no 
 mention of the Superiority of Bifhops, nor of any 
 Defign to inftitute fuch an Order, as an apt Remedy 
 againft Schifm. Nor is there any mention of it in- 
 Clement's Epiftle, written to *em long after. 
 
 That Taul left T'imothy at Ephefus, and wrote his 
 Erft Epiftle to him before his Imprifonmcnt at Rome 
 appears, 
 
 1. From his Journey to Macedonia, mentioned 
 I T'im. I. 5. which can be other than that mentioned 
 in the AEisy cap, 20. as moft of the Learned agree. 
 
 2. From his excommunicating Alexander the Cop- 
 per-Smith, i 'fim. i . 26. who is the fame Perfon that 
 is mentioned ^<5?j ip. 33. This Excommunication, 
 which fuppofcs him a Chriftian and an Apoftle, was 
 not long after his Apoftacy. 
 
 3. From the Apoftle's Hopes to come Jhonly unto T'i-* 
 fnothy, I Fet. 3. 14,15. which agrees well with the 
 Time of his ftay in Macedonia and Greece, mention'd 
 in ABs 20. I, 2. from whence 'tis thought he writ 
 his firft Epiftle to him, with whom he hoped to be 
 Pmtly, I "lim, 3. 14. Accordingly, foon after he came 
 to Miletus, the Time being ifar fpent, that he could 
 not conveniently go to Ephefus. JB, 20. 15, 16. 
 
 4. The firft Epiftle to T'imothy muft be written be- 
 fore Vaurs firft Imprifonment, becaufe the fecond E- 
 piftle was written in his firft Bonds, as the learned 
 Lightjoot and Hammond affirm. This is likely enougli 
 i^ we confider tht following Reafons, 
 
 I. When the fecond Epiftle was written to T;?;?^//;;', 
 he was young. 2 Tim. 2. 22. Flee youthful Lufts. Not 
 much older than when the firft Epiftle was writ to 
 him, in which he fays. Let no Man defpife thy Touth, 
 I Tim.^. 11, For the fame Reafon he charges the 
 '"^(Corinthians (to whom he writ before his firft Bonds) 
 
 not 
 
ia8 A Vindication of 
 
 not todefpife him= i Con i6* ii- being fent for, came 
 to Taul at Rome. 2 Tim, 4. ig. and i. it, 18. and 4. 
 13. After his coming thither, the Epiftles to the 
 VhilippianSy Colojjtans and Vhilemon were written, for 
 'Timothys Name is prefixed to 'em as well as Faufs, 
 N6w> 'twill not be deny'd, but thefe Epiftles were 
 written in his firft Bonds at Romey ?hil. i. 26. and 2. 
 2?;, 24. Thilemon. 22. therefore the fecond Epiftle to 
 Timothy- was written in his firft Bonds, tho'fome time 
 before thefe- 
 
 3. ?aul\ Sufferings, mentioned 2 T/w- 3. ii- which 
 happen'd at Iconium, Lyfira and Jmioch, twenty Years 
 before the Apoftle's fecond Imprifonment at Ro7?ie, 
 imply that the fecond Epiftle was penn'd fooner, than 
 his fecond Imprifonment ; for 'tis not likely the Apo- 
 file would mention Events (o .long iince part, when 
 thete were other later Sufferings of his, that were 
 much frefher in his Memory. 
 
 4. Tychkus was at Rome in Paul's firft Bonds, and car- 
 ried thence the Epiftles to the Ephejums and Coloffians* 
 This fending oiTychicus to Ephefus, is mention'd 2 Ti7fi' 
 4. 1 2. therefore this fecond Epiftle x.oTi?nothy was written 
 about the fame Time, viz.* in his firft Bonds. Th-nt 
 he was with Vattl in both his Bonds at Roma can't be 
 prov'd. 
 
 5. It's agreed that Vaul was hot (tt at Liberty in 
 his laft Iinprifonment at RomC) but he was deliver'd 
 from the Confinenlent mentioned 2 Tim. 4. 1 7. there- 
 fore that Epiftle was not writ in his laft Bonds- 
 
 6- Ltike was with Paul at Rome when he wrote the 
 Epiftle to the Coloffians, which was penn'd in his firft- 
 Bonds, as is confefs'd, Col. 4. 14. and fo he w^s 
 when Vaul fent the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, 2 Tim- 
 4. II. therefore this Epiftle was written during his 
 firft Bonds. 
 
 7. Pa2cl was under a favourable Confinement when 
 he writ his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, for he men- 
 tions only one Chain. 2 Tim. i» 16- ABs 28. 20. Eph. 
 
Mr. J. O wenV Tka. 1 2 9 
 
 \5, 2a. Ill his fecond Imprifonment he was more feve- 
 ly handled, as all agree. 
 
 Now fLicli as were in flrid Cuftody were bound 
 with two Chains, between two Soldiers, \Acis 12. 6. 
 Hence it fhou'd feem to follow, that this fecond Epi- 
 ftle to Timot/jy, which fpeaks but of one Chain, was 
 written in Paul's firil: Imprifonmenr. 
 
 8. Demas was with t^aul at Rome in his firft Im- 
 prifonment, Col. 4. 14. but not in his fecond Impri- 
 fonment. He left him in his Bonds, which we may 
 rationally conclude were his firft, 2 Tim. 4. co, 11. 
 There is no Evidence of his being with him in both. 
 This is abfurd and contradidory, fays the Redor. 
 
 ^' 52, 53- 
 
 Anf, Not fo j for Mr. O. prov'd he was there in 
 Paurs firft Bonds, and the Reclor fliould prove that 
 he was in the fecond ; then indeed the Argument 
 would be reconciieable to both fides, as he fays. 
 
 Well then, Timothy was no Bifhop of Ephefuf, be* 
 caufe he was no Bifliop there when the firil Epiftle 
 was written to him ; for Fatil commits the whole Go- 
 vernment of the Ephefian Church to the Presbyters of 
 it, after the writing of that Epiftle, and at a Time 
 when Timothy was prefent, or not far off. A'^s 20. 4: 
 17. 18.— -28. And that when the Apoitle knew, he 
 
 Jhotild never fee their Faces fnore- Acis 20. 25. 
 
 To this lafl: Scripture he oppofes two Things : 
 -I. He corrects the Tranilation, and fays, it Ihould 
 
 1 be rendered — / know that ye Jhall no more fee my Fac^ 
 
 . all of you. 
 
 I Anf, The E-phefian Presbyters to whom he fpake 
 thefe Words, underfcood em as his laft, thereforeyor- 
 rovSd mofl of all for the Words that he fpoke, that they 
 fhould fee his Face no more. ACts 20. 37, 38. /• 107. 
 
 2. When Faul faith, he knew thef Jbould fee his Face 
 no morey 'tis to be underflood of a conje^ural Knowledge 
 vnly^ faith he. />. ]o8. 
 
 K Jnf 
 
1 ^o A Vmdicat'ion of 
 
 Anf, I. Admit it Were fo^that/;.^ thought he Jhvuld fee 
 their F^'ue 'no more^ 'tis enough to confirm the Argu- 
 ment. If he only thought it, there's no doubt, but he 
 would have made the fame Settlement among 'em, as 
 ii he were certain ; and therefore this Turn given the 
 Text, will not anfwer the End. 
 
 2. But after ail, we can't fuppofe an infpir'd Apo- 
 file would fpeak fo pofitruely^ when he fpeaks coiijdhi" 
 rally. It would look raili in a fallible Man, to fay 
 pofitively, I knoiu I fhall nevrr fee fiich a Veopicy and af- 
 terwards, when he happens to fee 'em, to excufe the 
 Matter by faying, ^tivas only a coyijeEliiral KnoivkJge. 
 
 Did the holy Apoftle uk Lightnefs in his Speech > 
 His Words are theie, / kmvj that ye fiall fee my Face 
 no more. A6ts 20-25. / btovj ; this is not a bare Ccnje- 
 flure, but a certain Knowledge. He does not fay, / 
 thinky or hcpe, but / k,icw. No Man calls KnowledgCj 
 which is but zConjeBnre ; riurclore a certain Know- 
 ledge is here underilood, a V nowledge not built up- 
 on Probabilities, biif Certainty. So the Word is ta- 
 ken in other Places, as 
 
 Ads 20. 29. / knowt^at grievous IJ/olves fjall e}7ter in 
 among you. And they did fo. . And was this alfo a 
 conjedural Knowledge ? 
 
 Again, 1 john 1. 3. JVe know that v^e know him, if 
 v^e keep his Cc?nmanJs, 1 John 3-14. TVe know that we 
 have pafs'd from Death to Life.— 2 Cor. 5. i. IVe know--* 
 Are thefe Inftances of Knowledge, but Conjedures ? 
 
 And, as to that otht^r Scripture which the Adver- 
 fary tells us, muft be undcrftood conjedurally, tho' 
 fpoken pofiti vely, let us view it ; 'tis Phtl. i. 25. / 
 kucw 1 fhall abide and continue with you all. 
 ■ Anf. Even o:hx. here, fignifies certain Kmzvledge of his 
 Deliverance, and of his coming to Philippic 
 
 3. The Church of England reads the Words thus— - 
 / am fure—ye Jhall fee ffiy- Face no more. See Form of Or- 
 dination. 
 
 St. Paul fsivSi I biow: the Church fays, lamfure; 
 ** all 
 
Mr. J. Ovven'i Tlea. \ 3 i 
 
 all this is but a ConjeBurc^ fays a Son of the Church : 
 To refine thus upon the Apoftic, and afllime the Li- 
 berty of turning his certain Precliclions into ivild Conjc' 
 Bures^ is a high Crime in any, more efpccially in a 
 Divine of the Eftablifhn\ent. 
 
 ' But, he fays, T'lmoth/y the then fuppofed B:flio[^ 
 
 * o( Ephefus, might be omitted by the Apolllc in his 
 
 * Farewel-Scrmon, as the PreiOyters in his firft Epiftic 
 
 * to T:jNot/)y, wherein he treats of Church-Govern- 
 
 * ment, and one would think cou'd net have forgot 
 
 * em, when he was difconrfing on fuch an Argument. 
 
 * T,N. C p. 51. Pani. 
 
 Jnf I'll allure the Reader he did not forget 'cm. 
 Witnefs iTim.j. 15. Z,^? t/7^ Presbyters t/j.i? Rule well 
 be counted worthy of double Honour. And, cap. 5. 
 
 If T'nnothy was their fupremc Governour, how 
 comes Paul to commit the Government of his Church 
 to his Presbyters in Parity, which at the fame time 
 he calls Bijfjops ? AEls 20. 17, 28. A Text fo plain for 
 Presbyterial Parity, that all the World can't over-* 
 throw. All that the admired Oracles of Prelacy 
 have hitherto done, has been only to amufe their Rea- 
 ders by perplexing it with pervcrfe GlofTes. 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 The Original^ Office and Continucir.ce of the Evan^ 
 gelijls accounted for ; were not Bijhops* Philip 
 a^d Mark m refident Officers. 
 
 T^HIS Chapter is wholly taken up W^ith a Dif- 
 -i courfe about Evangelifisy who were unfix'd Of- 
 ficers in the Church, bur our Adverfary thinks, they 
 were Diocefm Bifiops, becaufe all thefupreme Govern- 
 ment of their refpedive Churches were committed 
 to em. />. 113, K 2 Anf 
 
1^1 A V^fftdtcation oj 
 
 AnJ. Evangelifts being confefledly a Species*of ex- 
 traordinary Church-Officers, I take it to be a Dimi- 
 nution of their Charader to be limited to particular 
 Churches. I fancy .an EngUjh Bifliop would think 
 himfelf degraded if his Power were reduced, and con- 
 fined to a little Parifh. To fet this Matter in its true 
 "Light, 'twill be neceflary to confider their Original 
 and Office. 'Tis certain, 
 
 1. The Apoftles needed Afliil:ants to vifit the New- 
 planted Churches in their Abftnce, for they could 
 not be every where, nor always water what they had 
 planted. 
 
 2. Thefe new Churches needed the Prefence of the 
 Apoftles, or Perfons deputed by 'em, to fupply what 
 was wanting, for the Canon of the New-Teftament 
 was not yet fram'd. 
 
 3. The Evangelifts were thefe Afliftants, agreed by 
 all, and plain in the New-Teftament, they were fe- 
 condary Apoftles, fent abroad to perfect the great 
 Work begun by the Apoftles themfclves. 
 
 4. Their Ufe in the Church was temporary. We 
 read of none that were to fucceed 'em or the Apo- 
 ftles but Pafiors and "feachers, who, according to Dr. 
 Hammondy were the Bifliops that govern*d particular 
 Charges then, in Eph. 4. 1 1 . 
 
 5. The Evangelifts were an extraordinary kind of 
 Officers, as the Apoftles were, and are fo counted, 
 Efh, 4. f I . 
 
 6. They did no more fix in one Place than the A- 
 poftles 6X6.^ for if they were not with em, they were 
 lent to the Places where they had fettled Churches. 
 
 The Apoftles made a confiderable ftay in fome 
 Churches, as Vaul at Efhefusy not as Biftiop of it, but 
 an Apoftle. The Evangelifts refided in no other 
 Senfe. 
 
 It ought therefore to be prov'd, that the Apoftles 
 fix'd an Evangelift in every Church as its fupremc 
 Governour, we find two or three of thefe at a time in 
 
Mr.]. Owen's Tlea. 133 
 
 a Churd)> as at Corinth. AB. ^9. 22- their being 
 in one Plabe for fome time (which cou'd not be 7- 
 voided where they had Opportunities of doingGood) 
 does not prove 'em to be reiident and fettictl there. 
 
 ' 'Tis urg'd, that Philip was a fix'd Evaru^clift at 
 * C^fureaj where he was about 20 Years with his Fa- 
 ^ mily. A'cl. 8. 40. aixl 21-8. 
 
 Anf. Why mayn't an unfcttl'd OfEccr have a fettl'd 
 Family ? St. John the Apoftic had a fettl'd Home to 
 which he brought our Saviour's Mother, after his 
 Deathj John 19. i-j- 
 
 St. Vaul was resident for fpme time at Ephcfin-, 
 Romey Corinth. Acl. 19. 10. and 18. 11. and 28.30. 
 
 Evangelifls were no Vagabonds, doubtlesfs ihey 
 had Houfes of their own, tho' they went about ; Co 
 that this Objection proves nothing. 
 
 That Thilip redded ar Cafareay as the fettl'd Bifbop 
 of it, is what was never yet prov'd- The Scripture 
 reprefents him as an unfettl'd Officer ; fometimes at^ 
 SaniiD'ia, then at Gaz^a^ which is a Defart, after that 
 at Azotufy Atls 8.— And, according to Eufebius, he 
 died at HierafoUs. Mr, Gipps denies this laft Circum- 
 fiance, and fays, there is not a Syllable of it there, 
 therefore calls Mr. O- an unfaithful Reprefenter of 
 Authors. T. N. C. p- 59- 
 
 Anf. There's np manner of Ground for this heavy 
 Charge,- for Eiifbiusy cxprefly affirms. That PkUtp 
 the Evangelift and Daughters died at Hierapolis, for 
 
 which he produces P olycr at e s ^ind Gajus ci U^ifou-i a 
 
 w'^©- «yr*» tViv Valef. edit. B. 3. C 31. 
 
 That the Evangelifls were an extraordinary Ordsj: 
 of Ecclefiafticks, is further evident from Hilarius's 
 Account of 'em, who fays, they preach'd the Gofpel 
 without a fixed Refidence. Sine Cathedra in Eph^ 4. 
 Eufehitts is of the fame Opinion. 
 
 ' But, fay they, Mark was a reiident Evangelift, 
 ' becaufe when he died, Ananius cnter'd upon the Ad- 
 '^miniftcation of the Church of Alexandfia. 
 
 K 3 M- 
 
1^4- ^ VirdicaUon of 
 
 Anf. It mr.y be as well fa id, that Veter was a refi- 
 dent ApopLiC at Rome, becaiife when he died Linus en- 
 tered upon the Adminiftration of that Church, ac- 
 cording to Eufabms i,. 2. 4. 
 
 That Mark was Companion or Meffenger of the 
 Apoftlcs, is evident from Afl. i 2. 2$.AB. 13- 13- AH, 
 15. 3 p. 2 Thn. 4. II- Philem: 2^. CoL 4. 10. i Pet. 
 5. 13. Eiifi^hius calls him Peters Companion. EccL 
 Hift. I. 2. cap. ] 5. Perhaps he- died at Alexandria^ 
 but that does not make him a Refident-Officer there. 
 
 All the Apoftles and Evangelifts ended their Days ^ 
 in fome Place or other, and in the Service of fome.' 
 Church:> but it does not follow that they were refi- 
 dent inthofe Churches. 
 
 ^is true, the Evangelifls did not go about every 
 where, as the Apoflles did, but mov'd in a narrow- 
 er Orb. I mean, the Apoflles went about every 
 where, as the Spirit guided 'era ; the Evangelifts 
 were under the Condud of the Apoflles, and went 
 about aifo, but only to fuch Places and Services, as 
 the Apoftles directed 'em. 
 
 If there mjjft be fome Church- OfEcers call'd Bi- 
 ixiops, fuperior to Presbyters, becaufe Evangelifts 
 were fo ; by the fame Reafcn there ought to be fome 
 Church-OlHccrs, fuperior to Bifhops, becaufe tiie Pro- 
 phets were fuperior to the Evangelifts j and another 
 fort of Church-Ofticers fuperior to 'em alfo, becaufe 
 ihe Apoflles were fuperior to the Prophets. 
 
 m. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
Mr. ]. Owen'j Tka. 155 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 Legi(h:tive Poiver of the Church que ft i on ah !e, De- 
 feciivenffs of Panflj-Difaplwe, JJ^/jtaj of Ri- 
 jhop and Prcshjter cofifefs'^oi. No 'fVCr-tiori of fr/pe- 
 rioT B/JJjups an';0f7g the Jlatcd and Jianding Officers 
 of the Charch in the JNew Teftament. Timothy 
 and Titus itinerant Preachers, Ignatius^ pre- 
 tended Diocefs^ Parochial oiily. In his Time the 
 Church govern"* d bj a Coiledge of Presbyters, Pref- 
 byters fucceed the Jpoftles^ proved from Ignatius, 
 Irepoeus, Jerom, Origen, Profper, Ambrofe, 
 Cyprian. Conclufwn. 
 
 MR. 0. having affirm'd and prov'd that Parifh- 
 Priefcs have nc Power of DiTcipline ; the 
 Recior fays, ' They have Power of Difcipline, bccaufe 
 ' all the Canons or Laws of the Church are made 
 ' by the Prieft.s of the Church of Eyjgland, as well as 
 * by the Bifhop^. Befides, they've Power to reprove 
 ' and fLifpend for a Time. 
 
 Anf. It fhould be fiid prov'd that Chrift gave 'cm 
 Power to make Canons, and to impofe 'cm. While 
 the Prelates pleafe 'emfclves with fuch Legiflative Au- 
 thority, all the Power we plead for, is a Liberty for 
 Parifh-Miniftersto execute the Laws ofChrifl -, efpecial- 
 ly in the exclufion of fcandalous Pcrfons from the Sacra- 
 ment5and the admiiTion of thofe who are duly qualified. 
 
 Does nor the Government of the Church belong to 
 the Bifhops, and is not the making of Church-Laws a 
 Part of that Government ? How then comes the Prieil: 
 to fhare with hisLordlliipin the Ecclefiaftick Legifla- 
 ture ? 
 
 Bat 'tis faid, the Laws of the Church are made in 
 Convocation with the Knowledge and Confent of 
 
 k 4 the 
 
1^6 A J^indicatim of 
 
 the Parif]]-Pr iefts, therefore they have Power of Go- 
 vernment. 7^ N. C 72. 
 
 Anf. It may be as well faid, tl\e People o£ England 
 have Power of Government, becaufc they chiife their 
 Reprefentatives in Parliairenr, where Laws are made 
 with their Knowledge and Confent 
 
 As to the Power of reproving, a private Perfon 
 may do as much as was obferv'd before. 
 
 But they have Power to fufpend from the Lord's- 
 Supper. 
 
 Anf Yes, for about 14 Days and no longer, and 
 then they are oblig'd to deliver up all to the Ordi- 
 nary, with whom the fufpended Oftender often com- 
 mutes, and returns as Impenftent as he went, and the 
 Parifh Minifler mufl admit him or be proceeded a- 
 gainft himfelf for difobeying his Superiors. 
 
 ' The Redor grants that Bifhops and Presbyters 
 
 * were the fame in the New Teftament, and were the 
 
 * ordinary Rulers of the Church, but Timothy and Tz- 
 
 * tm were above 'em. f.\26, 127. 
 
 Aitf. If they were the dime then, I wou'd fain know 
 how they come to be difcinguifii'd afterwards ? If 
 they be the fame, they have the fame Powers ,• therefore 
 if the Bifhop has Power to ordain, fo has the Presbyr 
 ter : If the Presbyter has no fuch Power, nomcJre has 
 the Bifhop according to this Learned Champion. 
 
 But 'timothy and Titus v/ere above the Presbyters. 
 
 Anf. And fo they were above Bifhops. 
 
 Mr, Ov)en having obferv'd, that the Apgftle does 
 not mention fuperior Bifhops in his Catalogue of 
 Gofpel Minifters. ^t^^^f 4- ii- 
 
 * The Redor afFigns this for a Reafon ^ Bifhops, 
 
 * as a diftind Species of Church-Officers, were no; 
 
 * as yet eftablifh'd. The unHx'd Evangelifts, govern'd 
 ^ the Churches under the Apoflles, and ordain'd El- 
 \ ders for 'em. 
 
 Anj, I. Here's a Confeffion^ there were no Bifhops 
 in the Chrifiian Church when the Epiflle to the Ephe^ 
 Jians was written. • 2. The 
 
Mr. J. OwenV Tlea. 1^7 
 
 2, The Ephedan Church was govern 'd by Presby- 
 ters, ASis 20. 28. without Evangeh'll: or Apoftle to, 
 p^^erfce 'em, that we read of. 
 
 :?. *Tis allow'd that the Evangelifls were unfix'd 
 Officers under the Apodles and ordain'd Elders. So 
 Timothy and Titus did, but that did not make 'en^ 
 fixed Governors of thofe Places, where liicy ordain'd 
 Perfons. — Befides, the Evangelifts did not receive 
 the fole Power of Ordination, becaufe Paul himfelf 
 took in the Presbyters in Ordination, i lim. 4. 14. 
 With the laying on 0} the Hands of the Presbytery. If the 
 Appftle did not lay on Hands alone, much lefs wou'4 
 Evangelifts do it ; therefore we can't fuppofe they 
 were inrrufted with the Power of Ordaining, exclu- 
 {iwQ of ^he ordinary Minifters. 
 
 ^ But "timothy was oblig'd to perpetual Rcfidcnce 
 ^ at EphefuS) I Jim. i- ■^' I be fought thee to abide fi ill at 
 * Ephefus. 
 
 Anf. this fignifies d, temporary Stay, or a fbort A- 
 bode. Mat. 15. ^2- Mark 8. 2. Thus Timothy is faid 
 to abide flill at Athens, when his flay was very fhott 
 there. ABs 17. 14, 15. 
 
 Befides, Paul in his fecond Epiftle to Timot^yy calls 
 him away from Ephefus^ his fuppofed Bifhoprick. 
 2 Tim- 4, 2 1. 
 
 Since then, we find him with the Apoftle at Rome 
 when he v/rote his Epiftle to the Fhilippiam, Phil, i, 
 I . Col. I.I. Vhilem. i . 
 
 In like manner he fends for Titus from Crete to M- 
 copolis. Tit. 3. 12. and afterwards fent him to Dal^ 
 matiaj and it does not appear that he ever return'd 
 CO his fuppofed Diocefs at Crete. 2 Tim, 4. lo. 
 . Again, it can't be prov'd there were more Chrifti- 
 ans in Ephefus than, no nor in Ignatius' sTim<^,th3in arc 
 in fome of our great Parifhes, which contain fome ten 
 Thoufand, fome twenty Thoufand Souls,and fome thir- 
 ty Thoufand ; nor indeed fo many, for the Ephcjians 
 Chriftians met in one plact, and the whole Congre- 
 gation 
 
158 A Vindication oj 
 
 gatfon ordinarily received the Lord's Supper at one 
 Altar in the Days of Ignatius, 
 
 Dr. Burnet acknowledges there was but one Nu- 
 merical Altar to one Diocefs then. The Learned 
 Mede is of the fame Opinion, which he confirms out 
 of Jujlii:. Martyr and Cypriau, Ep- 40. 72, -j^-de Unit, 
 EccL — Mede of Churches, p, 48>4P5 5 c. 
 
 Hence 'tis that Ignatius in his Epiflle to Polycarp 
 exhorts him to feek al/ by Name^ who ought to fre- 
 quent the publick AiTembly, and to other Duties that. 
 . reqiiir'd perfopal Attendance, which he could notpof- 
 fibly do a thole Diocefes were of equal Extent with 
 the modern. 
 
 It does not appear by the Ignatian EpiftleSj that the 
 Presbyters were govern'd by the Bifliops, only the 
 Bifhop (who was one of the fenior Presbyters) was 
 Chief for Order's fake. 
 
 The Deacons were fubjed to the Bifhops and Pref- 
 byters : but the Presbyters were not fubjed to the 
 Bifhop, 'Tis true, they cou'd do nothing without 
 him ; no more cou'd he without 'em. 
 
 Several things that follow, being hinted at before, 
 I pafs 'em by. The ReEior skips over about 120 Pa^ 
 ges of Mr. Ovjens Book, and yet w^ou'd perfuade the 
 World he had anfwcr'd it ; tho' he often profex4 he 
 wou'd not trace Mr. Owen thro' the antient Writers, 
 yet in the clofe he picks a quarrel with two antient 
 Qiiotations that fhew that Presbyters fucceed the A- 
 poiljes. 
 
 I. Ignatius fays, that the Presbyters fucceeded in 
 the place of the Bench of the Apoftles. Ad Mag. p- 33. 
 
 In another Place he fays Follow the TresLytery as the 
 Jpofiles^ Ad Smyr.p,6. In a third place he fays, hefuh'- 
 jeEl to the Presbytery as the Apoflks cf Jefus Chrifi. Ad 
 "Tral. /^. 48. 50. 
 
 If any Regard then be giv^en to Ignatiusy 'tis plain 
 that Presbyters {wccq,%^ the Apoftles. I don't know 
 any thing that can be expreftwith more clearn efs. 
 
 Ic 
 
Mr. J. Owen'j-p/m. 159 
 
 It was the Judgement of Irenaus, that Presbyters 
 fiicceeded the Ap.oftles. Cnm autern ad earn iterum 
 traditlonem qua eft ab Apofiolis, qua: per Succeffionem Fref^ 
 byterorum in Ecdefiis cujioditur- 
 
 But the Adverfary thinks by Presbyters he means 
 Bif]:op5. We think fo too, and thence infer that Pref- 
 byters and Bifhops are the fame in Irenaus as they 
 are in the Acis^ and in Paulas Epiftles. 
 
 In another place the fame Father fays, — JVe mujl 
 obey thofe Presbyters who receivd their Stuceffion j,om the 
 ApofileSj zuho tjoith the Succeffion of their Efijccpacy have re- 
 ceivd the Grace of Truth, AdHaref. 4. 45^44. Obferve here. 
 
 That Presbyters fucceed the Apoftles. 
 
 Presbyters have an Epifcopacy. 
 
 Thofe whom Lenmis calls Presbyters^ he calls alfo 
 Bifhops. 
 
 Irenaius his Bifliop, was but the firft Presbyter, as 
 Hilarius the Roman Deacon calls him. Ad Ephef. 
 
 Now by thofe firfl: Presbyters (who for Order's 
 fake had the Precedency of the refl;^ henaus and o- 
 thers derive the Succeflion, but the Churches were 
 j^ovcrn'd, not by thofe fingle Presbyters, or Bifhops, 
 but by the College of Presbyters in common, among 
 whom the fenior, or moft worthy Presbyter, had the 
 chief Seat, but without Power of Jurifdidion over 
 his Brethren, and to whom the Name of Bifhop by 
 degrees were appropriated. — 
 
 To the Inftances above, let us add, 
 
 3. Jeremy who fpeaking of the Clergy, fays, "that 
 they Juaeed in the Apofiolical Degree — and that a Pref- 
 byter may excommunicate. Ep. ad Heliodor. 
 
 4. Ongen makes all Presbyters to {i\ccQtd the A- 
 pcftles in the Power of the Keys, m Mat. 16. 
 
 5. Pro/per, makes all Holy Priefts, the Succeffors 
 of the Apofiles. De vit- Contempt, i. 25. 
 
 6. Ambrofe affirms, that the Priefls receive the 
 Power of the Keys from Peter. De dign. Sac er dot. c- i. 
 
 7. Cyprian fpeaks to the fame purpofe, that all the 
 
 ?r(h 
 
I4P A Vindication of 
 
 prepofiti (Presbyters as well as Bifliops) fucceed the 
 Jpoftles (Ep^ 69. Ep. 6p.) to whom Chrift fays. He 
 that heareth you heareth me. 
 
 Now, thefe Words of Chrift belong to the Presby- 
 ters as much as to the Bifhops : therefore thefe 
 Words were fpoken to them alfo as the Apojiles Suc^ 
 cejjorsy according to Cyprian. 
 
 And this is agreeable to the i Pet. 5. i. The Treshy- 
 ters which are among you I exhort, who alfo am a fellow 
 Presbyter. So the Gr. n^ia-iSifis^ni C^fA^7r^ia-^o7is(^. 
 
 Where the Apoftle Peter writing to Presbytersy calls 
 himfelf their Felloiiy-Tresbyter. 
 
 Had the Apoftle written thus. The Bijhops which 
 are among you I exhort, who am alfo a Bijhop ; How 
 wou*d our Adverfaries have triumphed ? This doubt- 
 kfs, wou'd have been cry*d up for an invincible Ar- 
 gument, to prove that Bifhops were the Apoftles 
 Succeffors, for the Apoftle writes to B/fiops and calls 
 himfelf their Fellow Bijhop. Ergo — 
 
 The Argument is ours, to prove that Presbyters 
 fucceed the Apoftles, (whoftile 'emfelves Presbyters) 
 in the ordinary part of their Office. (We don't de- 
 ny but Bifhops fucceed them, but as Presbyters, and 
 not as an Order of Church Officers, fuperior to Pref- 
 byters.) Thus the Ephedan Presbyters fucceeded the 
 Apoftle in the Government of that Church, which 
 was confign'd to 'em, when he had no Thoughts 
 of ever feeing their Face again. ABs 20. 15. 25. 28. 
 
 Timothy an Evangelift was tp fupply the temporary 
 Abfence of Paul from that Church -, the Presbyters, his 
 perpetual Abfence ; and therefore are properly his 
 Succeilors in the Governirient of that Church. 
 
 The End of the Second Tart. 
 
Ordination h^ Presbyters 
 
 Better than that by 
 
 DIOCESAN BISHOPS. 
 
 In Twelve ARGUMENTS. 
 
 Begun 
 
 \ hj the Ute Reverend, Mr. J a. 
 
 , Owen. 
 
 Fmjb'd 
 
 V-- 
 and Puhlifljd bj Charles Owkn. 
 
 
 PART 
 
 III. 
 
 
 QQQ Q(^Q3^ Q Q(^QQ<aO ; 9q)QO(SQQQ OQ(OQ 
 

 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ «j^ 
 
 j^ 
 
 m 
 
 l^m 
 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 ^Sl 
 
 
 ^m^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 w^m^Ll 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IN the former Part we have vindicated Ordinati- 
 on by Presbyters, and fully anlwer*d the Obje- 
 ciions that are made againll: it, I know it's c- 
 qually difficult to latisfy our Adverfaries in this Point 
 of the V^Mdhy of it, as *tis for them to {sLxhiy the 
 Papifls of the Truth of their Ordinations, who ufc 
 the very fame Arguments againft 'em, which they 
 manage againft us- 
 
 Among all the Terms of the prefent Conformity 
 required of us. Re-ordination is one of the worfL 
 If our Miniftry be valid, as we hare prov'd by at 
 leail as cogent Argumeatsy as ayiy the Adverfaries can pro- 
 duce for their Way cf Ordination, how unreafonable is 
 it to impofe upon us Re-crdination ? 
 
 Our Impofers themfelves difclaira Re-ordlnatiora 
 
 in a proper Senfe, as unlawful. The ancient 
 
 Church deposed all that fubmitted to Re-ordinatioa 
 Afoft. Can. 6j. 
 
 'Tis a plain Profanation of God s holy >3arae, and 
 of a great and holy Ordin^ance, by Lying, and ta- 
 king God's Name in vain ; for they are faid to he 
 now admitted to the O^ice, and this Day to receive it, and 
 God is told that they are now call'd to it, Crdin. of 
 Priefls. 
 
 And all their Examinations and Anfwers imply 
 that they were no Miniders before. 
 
 So that to fubmit to that Form of Ordination 
 ^^'ou'd be to deny our firft Vows, and to difown our 
 
 Mini- 
 
144- Introduction. 
 
 Minifterial Adminiftrations, which we canr't do with- 
 out incurring the Guilt of the moft damnable Sacra- 
 lege. That a facrilegious Renunciation of our for- 
 mer Dedication to God is intended, will convi(5i:ive- 
 ly appear by that Form of Renunciation found in 
 
 vhe Bifhop of C/j his Book, A. D. 1662. Eg& 
 
 T! p. Art, Mag. & curat Ecclefia Parochial'ts de 7l in 
 comitatu C. pratenfas Meas Ordinationum litems a quibuf- 
 dam Preshyteris olim obtentdSy jam fenitus renuncio & di- 
 mitto fro vanisy humiliter fupfUcanSy quatenus Rev. in 
 
 Chriflo pater & Dominus G. permiffione divina C. 
 
 Epifcopus'me adfacrum Diaconatus ordinem juxta ritus 
 
 Ecclefia Anglicana dignaretur admittere. 
 
 This fhews the Senfe of the Fathers of the Church, 
 when they require Re-ordination. The old Church 
 of England did not re-ordain fuch as were ordained 
 by Presbyters, as we have prov'd in the formei: Part. 
 
 I know no ancient Precedents for Re-ordination, 
 but what we find among the Donatifts and Papifts. 
 
 The old Do«^///?/ re-baptiz'd and re-ordain'd. Op- 
 tatus complains of 'em thus : Te found Deacons, Presby- 
 ters, Bijhops, and ye made Lay-men of V?//. Inveniflis 
 Diaconos, Presbyteros, Epifcopos, feciflis laicos. Optat. adv* 
 Parm. lib.2. fol. zj. 
 
 In like manner Pope Sergius ordain'd again, fuch as 
 had been made Priefts by his Predeceffor Formofus, 
 Lucit.pr, 3. 12. 
 
 The Bifhops of Scotland wtv^i requir'dthe Presby-^ 
 terian Minifters there to take Epifcopal Ordination, 
 they required 'em only to come and ac^ with 'em in 
 Church-Judicatories. 
 
 * No Bifhop in Scotland, during my flay in that 
 
 * Kingdom (faith the Bifhop of Sarum) ever did fo 
 
 * much as defire any of the Presbyterians to be re- 
 
 * ordain'd. Bifhop o/Sarum's Vindication, printed Lon-- 
 don, 16^6. p, 84,85. 
 
 If Ordinations by Presbyters be not only good, as we 
 have prov df but in fome refped better than Epifccr^ 
 
 pal 
 
I N It R O D 14c T I O N. 145 
 
 pal Ordinations, as I ihall prove immediarcly, we 
 have reafon to be fatis/ied with our firft Ordination, 
 and to look upon Re-ordination, under what Name 
 ibever it be recommended, as an Artifice of deiign- 
 ii)g Men to deface, and not to confirm our firif Cha- 
 rader. 
 
 We'JI appeal to the judicious and impartial, whe- 
 ther our Ordinations be not better than the Epifco- 
 I pal ones in the twelve following Particulars ; we al- 
 low Epifcopal Ordination to be good, but the Quc- 
 ftion is. Whether that or ours be the bed ? The lat- 
 ter is here maintained. 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Presbyterians ordain qualijied Men to he Preacher Sy 
 according to Chrifi^s Commijfion, BijJjops ordain 
 meer Readers fome times ^ as the Qanonjys. 
 
 ^rg\7^^ One are ordained among us, hutfuch as are 
 ^^ found upon due trial to be tolerably qualified for 
 the great Work of preaching the Gofpel of Salvation ; and 
 herein we ad according to the Scriptures, which re- 
 quire Ability of T'e aching in Miniflers. 2 Tim. 2. 2. i Tim. 
 
 2. 'fit. I. p. 
 
 Chrifl's Commiflion to Miniflers is, Go and preach 
 fhe Gofpel ; we don't find that he fent any to be bare 
 Reader Sy that were not endued with Abilities of 
 teaching and intruding the Flock committed to their 
 Charge. 
 
 But our Adverfaries ordain fome for 7neer Readers 
 in the Church who never preach ; and this is agree- 
 ible to the 49th Canon of the Church of England, that 
 nentions afort of Miniflers among them v:}.o mvfh 
 neither preach nor expound the Scripture, The Title of 
 
 L the 
 
1 46 Vreshyterml Ordinatrnty 
 
 the Canon is beneficed Meriy not Vreachers, to procure 
 monthly Sermons. So the Title of the 4pth Ca- 
 non, Aliniflers not allow d Treachersy may not ex- 
 pound. The Title of the 57th Canon runs thus, 
 *fhe Sacrament not to be refusd at the Bands of lit 
 i^^'f reaching Miniflers, 
 
 By all which it appears, That there are fome or- 
 dain'd to be Minifiers in the Church, who are not 
 Preachers. Inftances of which I have' known in fome 
 obfcure Parts of the Kingdom, but how Men may 
 be Minifters and not Preachers, is what I can't con- 
 ceive j nor do I know of any Scripture that favours 
 fuch a Pradice. 
 
 In this Particular, our Ordinations feem preferable- 
 to theirs. 
 
 Chap. II. 
 
 Among us the Candidates exarmn^d by the Ordain' 
 ers. In Eptfcopal Ordination ^tis otherrvije. The 
 Dire^fory preferable to the Canons, Method ofl 
 young Students faffing their Trials^ confidered am 
 compar'^d, 
 
 Avg- II. TN the Ordination of Minifiers by PresbytersJ 
 -*- the Ordainers are the j'ryers of 'em^ and they ouglof 
 to be Jo; but in Epifcopal Ordinations, the Bifhophini- 
 felf, who is the principal if not fole Ordainer, fel- 
 dom examines the Perfons to be ordain d, but takes 
 the bare VV^ord of his Archdeacon (an Officer not 
 known in Scripture) or Chaplain for their Qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
 The Bifhop tells him, Take heed that the Verfons 
 ivhom ye prcfent unto us, he apt and ?7teet for their Learn- 
 ing and godly Converjation to exercife their Minifiry duly. 
 The Ordin.ofTriep. 
 
 The 
 
prefer ahle to Epifco^aL I ^j 
 
 The Archdeacon anfwers, I kr^ve enquirdcf'em, and 
 alfo examindy and think \m Jo to he. 
 
 What Scripture-Rule can be fliown for the Ordain- 
 er to commit the Examination of Perfons to be or- 
 dained to a Deputy? Examining and judging of the 
 Qualifications of Perfons to be acmitted totheMini- 
 ftry, is one ofthemoit confiderable Things relating to 
 Ordination, and requires the matureft Deliberation, 
 No Man can make a right Judgment of all the Mi- 
 nifterial Abilities of a Perfon before he has heard him 
 preach, which the Archdeacons feldom or ever do ; 
 nor do the Bifhops think themfelves oblig d to do it. 
 The Apoflle bids Timothy lay Hands fuddenly on no 
 Man^ that is, before fufficient Trial. Suddenly, that isi 
 faith TheophylaEl, rajljly, upon the firf}, Jecond or third 
 'Trial, but after freqnent Trials, and the JlriB-ft In- 
 quii'y. I 7l»;. 5. 22. &;^;£4 5 Hand quaquam cito, /. e. te- 
 rrier e, vel cum frimum qttempiam pier is fecundove nut 
 tertio per-clitatus, fed Jape, ut diligenter omnibus invefliga- 
 tis Manus cuiquamimpojueris. Theophylacl. in loc. 
 
 Did Bi/hop Timothy (as fome afFed to call him) 
 commit the Examination of Candidates to his Presby-» 
 ters ? Surely he that wou'd not be Partaker of other 
 jVlcns Sins, wou'd fee with his own Eyes, and hear 
 with his own Ears, and not take the Qualifications 
 of Perfons upon Trufl, without Irrict Trial. 
 
 The authoritative judging of Minillerial Abilities^ 
 is in fome refped a greater Work, than the bare Im- 
 pofition of Hands ; io: the Validity of Ordination^ 
 as it refpeds God, depends upon the Qualifications 
 of the Perfons fet apart. If they have not competent 
 Abilities, they are no Minifiers, foro Divino, whatever 
 they are taken to be foro Ecdefia. Whatever Men 
 think, they are no true Minillers in God's Account. 
 The Bifhops prudently confjlt their Eafe^ by throw- 
 Sing the moft difficult Part of the Work upon the Pref- 
 byters. They may as warrantably commit the Ordi- 
 jnation as the Examination to em : If they may be 
 
 L a ' trufted 
 
1 48 Treshytenal Ordination^ 
 
 trufted with that Part which requires intelledual Abi- 
 lities, why not with the other, which may be per- 
 form 'd without? An ignorant B^fhop (as many Po- 
 pifh Bifhops are) may lay on Hands> but he can't 
 judge of Minifterial Abilities. 
 
 Ordination by Presbyters is upon this account 
 more eh'gible than that by.Bifiiops ,• for in the former 
 the Ordainers make trial, and that with far greater 
 Stridnefs than in Epifcopal Ordinations. 
 
 The Diredlory, according to which the Ordina- 
 tions of the late Times were manag'd, requires the 
 Presbyters to examine the Skill of the Perfon to be 
 ordained in the Original Tongues, by reading the 
 Hebreixi and Greek Teflaments, and rendring fome part 
 into Latin, to make trial of his Ability to defend the 
 Orthodox Dodrine, and of his Skill in the Senfeand 
 Meaning of fuch Places of the Scripture, as fhail be 
 propofed to him in Cafes of Ccnfciencc, and in the 
 Chronology of the Scripture, and the Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftory : He is to expound before the Presbytery, 
 fuch a Place of Scripture as fhall be given him : He 
 jfhall frame a Difcourfe in Latin upon fuch a common 
 Place or Controverfy ni Divinity, as fliall be aifign'd 
 him, and exhibit to the Presbytery fuch T'hefes as ex- 
 prefs the Sum thereof, and maintain a Difpute upon 
 'cm- He fhall preach before the People, the Pref- 
 bytery, or fome of the Miniilers of the Word appoint- 
 ed by 'em, being prefent. 
 
 Befides the Trial of his Gifts in Preaching, he fhall 
 undergo an Examination in the Premifes two feveral 
 Days, and more if the Presbytery fhall judge it nc- 
 ceflary. In all which he being approv'd, is to be 
 fent to the Church, where he is to ferve, there to 
 preach three feveral Days before he be ordain'd. 
 
 He that would fatisfy his own Confcience about 
 his Abilities for the Miniftry, wou'd rather undergo 
 the flri^c and deliberate Trial of a Bench of Pres- 
 byters, than the fuperficial and flight Trial of, 
 
 aa 
 
p-eferalle to Rftjco^cd. 1 49 
 
 an Archdeacon : They that have been prefcnt at 
 botij, will acknowledge a Dificrence. 
 
 HAP. 
 
 Ill, 
 
 Presbyters are confefffdlj of Dhine Originds^ Dioce^ 
 fan Epifcopacy a pruder/tial Inftitution^ fo Grotius 
 and Lr, Hammond fij. 
 
 Arg.lll."^ KY. Ordainers among us in the late 
 A Times were contelled Officers of Chrift, 
 ijoz they were Presbyters ordain'd by Bifliops. Now, 
 all will acknowledge the Office of a Presbyter 
 to be Divine ; but the Office of a Diocefan Bi- 
 fjbop, v/ho takes upon himfelf the fole Government 
 of fome hundreds of Churches, is found-ed upon Hu^ 
 mane Authority, and is not that Scripture Epifcopa- 
 cy, which conflitutes all Minillers, Paftors, or Bi- 
 Ihops of their refpedive Flocks. 
 
 So that Bifhops of the Italian Species, qua talesy are 
 none of ChrilVs Officers, and all Presbyters confefled- 
 ly are fo. 
 
 Grotiusy an unexceptionable Author with our Op- 
 ponents, afferts the Epifcopal Eminency to be found- 
 ed in no Divine Precept, and that it was a mutable 
 Conftitution' He pleads for a prudential Intercificn 
 of this Order for a Time, on feveral Accounts, but 
 chiefly the inveterate corruption of the Order and In- 
 ftitution. Whilll: he is doing this, he little lefy than 
 pleads for an utter Abolition of it. He argues from the 
 A(5t of Htz.ekias in dcftroying the brazen Serpent, and 
 the Romans expulfion of the Tarqiiinsy and the Kingly 
 Dignity and Office 
 
 It is true, he faith, it obtain'd in the Apoflles 
 Times, and was aurhonz'd and approv'd by them ; 
 
 L 3 but 
 
1 cjo Treshyterial Ordiaation^ 
 
 but he adds. That it was neither univetfally enjoyn'd, 
 iior obferv'd, neither in thofe or in the following 
 
 Times .... 
 
 The piefentDiocefan Epifcopacy is much degenera- 
 ted from that which hefeemsto approve of, and fpe- 
 ci^cdiWy differs from it, if it be not deflrixtive of it, 
 as Mr. B. has prov'd in his Treatife of Epifcopacy^ not 
 yet anfwer'd .... Therefore our Ordinations are better. 
 
 Dr. Hammond^ a great Aflertor of Diocefan Epif- 
 copacy, undertakes to 'prove that Scripture Bifhops 
 were the fole Paftors of particular Congregations, 
 without Subjed Presbyters ; and. fuch Bifliops were 
 the Parifli Minifters of the late Times. 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 Tresbjterian Ordi;iatio'/?s peyform'*d in Frcfeme of the 
 People to p:kom they are to preachy wh/ch is agree-' 
 dble to Scripture arid Antic^uity^ frov^d by unco?}* 
 tejlable hjlancei. Epifcopd and Papal Ordinati* 
 ons in Cathedrals in the Peoples Jbfence^ contrary 
 to Primitive Praciice. Minifters chofcn hj the 
 People. Btjhops eMied by Clergy and People^ de- 
 pos'^d when chojcn by the fecuUr Poirer. How and 
 when the Veoj>le come to loofe their Right of £- 
 Iditon^ and chuftng their own Minijlers. 
 
 Arg.lV' TpHE Ordinations of the late Times 
 ^ were perform 'd in the Prefence of the 
 People, by whom they were chofen for their Paftors, 
 Plebe prafentey which is agreeable to Scripture and An- 
 tiquity. 
 
 To Scripturey Acls 14. 23. I'hey ordain d 'em Elders 
 in every Churchy that is, where they were , tp preach, 
 and not in ^'As^wi Places? To 
 
f referable to Ej^ifcopal. i 5 l 
 
 To Antiquity. It was the general Pradice in Cy 
 prians time to ordain Bifhops as well as Pref- 
 byters in the Prefence of the People, who had 
 full Knowledge of their Converfation , and for 
 whom they were fet apart. De traditione Divina & 
 ApC'ftolica obfervatione oljervandum — quod apud nos — - 
 & fere per provincias Vniverfas tenetur ut ad ordinationes 
 rite celebra'ddas ad earn plebem cut prapofitus ordinatur"" 
 CSr Epifcopus deligatur plebe prafente, qua vitam plcniffim^' 
 Novit. C)pr. Ep. 68. 
 
 The fourth Coaucil of Carthage enjoyns a Bifhop 
 to ordain none without the Teftimony of the Peo- 
 ple. Si}ie teflimonio plebis. Carth.can 4. can- 22. 
 
 The fecond Council of Nice declares all Eledions 
 of Biiliops by the Civil Magiflrate to be void 
 T\icen. Cone. 11. Can. 3. 
 
 The eighth General Council of Conftaminople (fo 
 fii] a) decrees, that none aflume the T^ignity of a 
 Bl^:^op by means of the iecular Powers. Ne quis p(h 
 t^hti.i frmcipum fretus ajjumat Dignitatem Epifcopi. 
 
 Alexander Senerus, an Obferver and Favourer of the 
 "iiiirtians, permitted the People to chufe their Ma- 
 Idrares in Imitation of the Chriftians, who chofc 
 lifir fpiritual Officers. Pez.el.pars ij, p. 21J. 
 
 Padr:^ Vaolo obfcrves, that it is acknowledg'd by 
 5iany Dodors of the Roman Church, that the E- 
 iifcion of Miniikrs by the People was an Apoftoli- 
 cai Inilitution (tho* laid afide in that Church, as is 
 aifo the Cup in the Eucharift) and continu'd more 
 than eight Hundred Years. H'ftory of the Council of 
 Trent. /. 11. p. 153. 
 
 Antonius Auguftinm, Bifhop of Lerida, confefTes, that 
 in the ancient Church the Minifters were ordain'd in 
 Prefence of all the People, and needed not Letters 
 Patents or Teftimonials, and after they had gain'd 
 a Title they did not change their Diocefs. He adds, 
 that Letters Teifimonial were intioduc'd in Supple- 
 ment of the Prefence of the People. Ibid- /. 6- p. 465. 
 uh.Ediu L 4 About 
 
1^2 Treshjterial Ordination^ 
 
 About the latter end of the fourth Century, the Con- 
 tention between Synnnachm and Lauremiuf was ma- 
 nag'd with fuch iiercenefs, that T^heodcYus King of Italy 
 was fain to, interpofe his Authority. He coniirm'd 
 Syrnmcichus^ and provided another Bifhoprick for Lau- 
 rentim; who not contented therewith, returns to -Ro?;;^ 
 four Years after, being invited by feveral of the 
 Clergy, and fome of the Nobility of his Fadiion. 
 This occaiion'd fuch a great Tumult that many of 
 the Clergy and People miferably perifh'd ; among o- 
 thers, GordiamiSy a. Presbyter, and many more had 
 been deftroy'd in this Epifcopal IVar, had not Fauftus 
 the Conful put an end to it by overpowering the 
 Combatants. Sy'rnmachus is again confirmed, excom- 
 municates the Emperor, and ftnves to exclude the 
 People from chufing their Popes, yet they continue 
 to chufe 'cm 'till about the Year 1142. Vid. Plat, in 
 vit. Symmach. 
 
 The Conflitutions of Clement^ which tho' not his 
 yet are ancient,, fpeak to the fame purpofe, that the 
 People were prefent at the Ordination of their KJini- 
 fcers.- Clem. Conftit. 8.4. 
 
 The Confecration of our EngUJh Bifiiops \s very 
 rarely within the Diocefs where they are to be Bi^ 
 iliops, nor are they chofen by the People; nay, they 
 are generally mcer Strangers to 'em. 
 
 The Presbyters are not ordain'd in that Parifh 
 where they are to ofHciatc, nor are any requir'd to 
 be prefent befidesfour Miniilers. Engl. can. 31. The 
 Canon exprefly decrees all Ordinations of Deacons 
 and Miniflers, to be celebrated in the Cathedral or 
 TariJ}) Church where the Bijhop re/ides, which is gene- 
 rally at a great Diilance from the Places where they 
 are to be fettl'd. 
 
 Compare this Canon with the DireBory. (Dircflory 
 for Ordination^ 5.J which requires Ordination to he per- 
 form d in that Churchy where he that is to be ordain d is 
 to fervty s^and a folemn Fafi to be kept by the Congregation^ 
 
 that 
 
preferable to Epfco^d. 15^ 
 
 that they may the more carueflly joyu in Prayer for a Blef- 
 fing upon the Ordinance of Chrijly and the Labours of his 
 Servant for their Good, 1 leave it to the judicious Read- 
 er to determine, whether the Canon orDireBory be raofl 
 agreeable to the primitive Pradicc. 
 
 Some Footfteps of the ancient Praflice appear in 
 the Bifhop's Addrcfs to the People ; If there te any of 
 you who knoweth any Impediment or notable Crime in any 
 of thefe, for the vohicjb he ought not to be receivd into the 
 Holy Minifiry, let him come forth in the Name of Gody 
 and fjeTjj what the Crime or Impediment is- "Tije Order of 
 Frie/Is, 
 
 This Queftion was very proper when Perfons were 
 ordain'd in the Prefence of that People who knew 
 their Converfations, and over whom they were to 
 befctj but does it notfeem ftrange, to fay no worfe, 
 to call Perfons forth in the Name of God to teftifie 
 their Knowledge concerning the Convcrfation of thofe 
 to whom they are perfed Strangers, and whofe Fa- 
 ces they never faw before ; which is the Cafe in moft 
 Ordinations that are performed in Cathedral Church- 
 es at a diflance from the Pariflies to whom the Per- 
 fons ordain'd do belong. 
 
 This evidently refers to the ancient Ufage of Or- 
 daining with the confent and choice of the People. 
 
 The antient Pontifical had this Paflage: The Bifhop 
 ordaining faith, That it has been confittuted by the Fa- 
 thersy not ivithout Caufe, that the People jhoud have a 
 Voice in the Ordin ition of the KeElors of the Altar, that 
 they may be obedient to him who'm they have ordain d, in 
 Regard of their confenting to his Ordination* 
 
 But it was mov'd in the Council of T'rent that the 
 Pontifical might be correded, and thofe Places ex- 
 pung'd which make mention of the Voice and Con- 
 fent of the People in Ordinations, becaufe fo long as 
 they continue there, the Hereticks (fo they call the 
 Protcftants) will make ufe of *em to prove that the 
 AlTiftancc of the People is neceffary. Hifi. of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, /. -]. p. 552. Edit. Loud, 16-/6, Cy- 
 
154 Vreshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 Cyprian^ who liv'd m the third Century, afcribes to 
 the People the chief Power of chufing worthy Mini- 
 jflers, and rejecting the unworthy. Quando iffa (plebs) 
 maxima habeat potejiatem, vd Eligendi dignos Sacerdotesy 
 vel indigms recufandi Cypr. ubt Supra. 
 
 Then he proves tbis Power of the People to be of 
 a divine Original, from the Example of Ekaz.ar who 
 was admitted to fucceed Aaron in the fight of all the 
 Congregation ; to fignifiey faith he, that Ordination 
 to be jutl and lawful. Qtca omnium fuffragio & judicjo 
 fuerit examinata. 
 
 Then he (hews that Teter confulted the Body of 
 the Difciples about a Succellbr to Judas in the Apo- 
 ftolical Office, and that the very Deacons were cho- 
 fen by the People in Acls 6. upon which PafTages he thus 
 comments, ' That it was diligently and cautioufly 
 *. managed in the Prefence of the People, that no un- 
 * worthy Perfon might intrude into the Minillry. Qtiod 
 utiqus id circo tarn dtligenter & caute convocata tota pkbe 
 gercbatur, ne quis ad altaris Minifterium, vel ad Sucarda- 
 tolem locum indignus obrepem. Cypr. Ep. 55. 
 
 Andfpeaking of Miniilers who gave no convidive 
 Teflimony of their Reformation, he confefleth, he 
 had much ado to prevail with the People to admit. 
 Vix plebi perfuadeOy immo extorqueo ut tales patiantur 
 admitti. 
 
 Cyprians Teflimony is fo plain and convincing, 
 that QvcnPamelius, aPapifl, is forc'd to acknowledge 
 that the ancient way of making Miniflers was by fhe 
 Eledion of the People, 
 
 He obferves that it was us'd in Africa, in Greece^ 
 in France, in Spain and in Italy, and that this Cuflom 
 continued till the Time ot^ Gregory the Great, and much 
 lower ; of all which lie gives fevcral Examples. Pa- 
 mel. in Cypr. Ep. 68 not. 16. 
 
 ArMius, the Jefuit, confeffeth the continuance of it 
 to the Times of Ludovicus Pius in the ninth Century. 
 Azor, par, 1 1. lib. 3. c, 28. 
 
 It 
 
p'cf (arable to Epfco^al. 155 
 
 It is orciain'd by the Conftitution of a Roman 
 Council, under Syhefier, that the Ptrfon to be Qrdaiii'd 
 Jhoud have the Vote of the Clergy and People. Ordinandns 
 haheat 'vota cleri & populi. 
 
 Cornelim was made Bifhop of Rome by the fufFrage 
 of the People. 
 
 Amhrofe was chofen Bi/hop of Milan by the fuffragc 
 of the Multitude. Socrat. 4. 30. 
 
 Chryfo/iom was made Bifhop of Conftantimple with 
 Confent of Clergy and People. The Benefit and Sa- 
 tisfadion he found therein made him fay, That the 
 fuffrage of the Churches does not a little adorn thofe 
 who are admitted to fpiritual Dignities. Horn. 18. in 
 1 Coy, 8. 
 
 Leo the Firfl, Bifhop o( Rome, rejefts thofe Bifhops 
 who want the Eledion ot^ Clergy and People. Ep. 
 ad Rtifir. Niirh. cap. i . 
 
 He faith in another Place, Let him he chofen by all 
 luho is to be ft over all. Qui prafutu^m eft omnibiis, ab 
 Qinnibtts eligatur. ad Ep. Viennens, Ep- 8 p. 
 
 The People were fo tenacious of this ancient Pri- 
 vilege, that they who wanted this Eledion, could not 
 be admitted without a military Force. Leo. ibid. 
 
 To the fame purpofe he fpeaks in another Epiftle ; 
 Let him be ft over all whom the unanimous Confent of Clergy 
 and People dtfires. Ep. 84. Ad Anaftas. cap. $ & 6- 
 
 He complains, that fuch as were Strangers to the 
 People, began to be impos'd upon 'em in his Time. 
 Ep. 84 — 4. 
 
 Auftin difapproves the Acl of S^verus Bifhop of Mi^ 
 levisy in nominating a Succefibr without the Peoples 
 Confent, tho* the Clergy had confented. Ep. no. 
 
 The Peoples abufing of this Right upon fome par- 
 ticular Occafions, is no juft Caufe why they fhould 
 be depriv'd of it : By the fame Reafon they may be 
 cHbpriv'd of all their Gofpel-Privikges ; for which of 
 'cm have not been abus'd by fome or other > 
 
 Let Churches be conftituted and regulated accord- 
 
1)6 Trcshytcrial Ordinatim^ 
 
 ing to the Golpel, and there will not be that Danger 
 of Peoples abuling their Liberty. 
 
 One may juflly wonder, that thofe who make fiich 
 loud Pretenfions to Antiquity, fhou'd fo grolly devi- 
 ate from it, and that in Things fo undoulDtedly con- 
 fonant to the Scripture. 
 
 The fifth Council of Orkance decrees, That no Bi- 
 fliop be made without the Election of Clergy and 
 People. This Council was held A, D. 552. Adds, 
 that this Rule was agreeable to the old Canons. Jn:> 
 ill EhEiionem Cltri ac pkbis. Concil. Aurel. V-J^an. 3 CiT 4. 
 
 The fourth Council of "foledoy which was held in 
 the Year d'^'^^ faith. They are unvjorthy of the Homur of 
 the prieflhood, ivho endeavour to obtain that Honour by 
 Gifts ; who are neither chofen by the Clergy j nor by the People 
 of the refpeclive City, And if any fuch be made Biffjop^ let 
 him and his Ordainers be deposed. Qui nee a clero, nee 
 a populo propria Civitatis eleBi funt. 
 
 The Council of Chalon, which was calTd A. D. 650, 
 of the vulgar j^r a, ordains, Thar jf aBifhop happen 
 to d\Qy his Succeffor muft be chofen by his Compro- 
 vincials, and by his Clergy and Citizens, otherwifc 
 his Ordination to be void. Non ob alio, nifi d Com- 
 pro'vincialibus Clero & Civibus fuis alterim habeatur eleElio, 
 Sin autem, hujus ordinatio irrita habeatur. Concil. Cabi^ 
 Ion. Can. 10. 
 
 Conft amine 111. A.D. 6^1 permitted the Clergy 
 
 and People of Rome to chufe their Bifhops. 
 
 That the Eledion of the People generally preceed- 
 ed the Ordination of Bifhops and Presbyters in the 
 ancient Church, will further appear, if you con- 
 fult Conflant. Ep. Ad Nicomed. apud I'heodor. i. c. ^. & 
 Eptfi- Synod. Niccn. ad Alexandrin. apud Socrates, i, p. 
 C7 Augufiin. contra f. 3, 52. 
 
 Til briefly confider, how the People by degrees 
 came to be depriv'd of their Right to chufe their pv^ 
 Minifters. 'Twas, 
 
 I. By the Ambition and Covetoufnefs of afpiring 
 
 Prelates. 
 
preferable to Epfco^aL 15-7 
 
 Prelates. This appears in Torphyry, who upon the 
 Death of Flavian, Bifhop of Antioch, got himielf con- 
 fecrated without the People's Confent or Knowledge, 
 and tyrannically invaded the Epifeopal Throne, which 
 occalion'd a Tumult, and great Pcrfecution to the 
 Church. Niceph. H/fi, 1^. 30. 
 
 In like manner Urjjuus or Ur/rcus, the Roman Dea-^ 
 coriy oppos'd Damafus, and at laft got himfelf ordain'd \ 
 a Bifhop, which occafion'd a great Sedition, (o that I 
 the very Churches were filled with Blood- Socrat 4. I 
 
 29. Ruff. II. 13 There were no lefs than 137 ^ 
 
 Perfons kill'd in one Church in one Day upon this 
 occafion, as Ammianus MarceUinus, a Heathen Writer, 1 
 affirms : And he givQS this Reafon for that bloody \ 
 Contefl, / 
 
 ' 1 don't wonder, faith he, that the Chriflians are 
 ^ fo eager in their Ptirfuit of Bifhopricks, feeing there- 
 ^ by they are enrich'd by the Oblations of Matrons ; 
 
 * they go in Chariots, are ftimptuoufly cloath'd, and 
 ' keep fuch fplendid Tables, that they exceed even 
 
 * thofe of Princes. 
 
 The Civil Magiflratcs firft interpos'd themfelves to 
 fupprefs the Tumults occafion'd by ambitious Con- 
 tenders for Prelacy : Thus Vakntinian interpos'd his 
 Authority between Damafus and JJrJinus* 
 
 So did Honor ins between Boniface and Eulal/im, and 
 Theodoricus between Symmachm and Laurentjus. 
 
 2. It muit be acknowledg'd, that the People being 
 flir'd up by the Pradices of cunning Church-Men, 
 did fometimes abufe their Power. 
 
 So they did in favour of Timothy^ firnam'd AEluruSy 
 the Eutychian Hereticky whom they advanc'd into the 
 Epifcopal Chair, in oppofition to Proterim, and the 
 great Council of Chalcedon. Prcterius arid fix more 
 were barbaroufly murder'd by the Hereticks- After 
 Che Death ot ^lurus they chofe Ptter Moggm^ a worfe 
 Man than JEIurus^ which fo offended the Emperor 
 Zenoy that he put ifome of 'em to Death ; 5fet upon 
 
 * their 
 
158 Treshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 their addrcfling themfelves to him, that they might 
 be impower'd to chufe their own Bifhop, he ordairt'd 
 that the Clergy fhou'd chufe a Bifhop for em. 
 
 'Tis remarkable, we rarely read of any Tumults 
 rais'd among the Orthodox, concerning the E/edion 
 of Minifters, but they always happened upon the 
 Eledion of afpiring Bifhops, and rather proceeded 
 from the Ambition of their Clergy, than from the 
 Diforder of the People. 
 
 3. Another thing that difcourag'd the People from 
 chufing their own Minifters, was the impoling of Stran- 
 gers upon 'em by force of Arms ; this is mi^ntioned by 
 LeOy who reproves the Bilhops of the Province of l/iennu 
 for invading the Churches tumulruoufly, and bringing 
 Guards of armed Men with 'em to force the People 
 to accept of ^em. Militaris mamis per provincias fequi- 
 tur facerdotcJUi Ep- 85?. ad Epiji — vien. — 
 
 4. The Founders of Churches invaded the Rights 
 of the People in the Elecl:ion of Minifters ; the 
 Power of Election was either transferr'd to 'em by 
 way of Gratitude for their Kindnefs to the Church, 
 or they affumed it as having the greatefl Power in 
 the Parifh. 
 
 The former feems to be intended by the Council 
 of 'foledo, which fays. Let Founders of Churches chufe 
 •what Minijlers fijall ferve in \m. Fundatores Ecdefimum 
 Minifiros eligent. 4. 18. 
 
 Hence 'tis that Patrons (as we call 'em) chufe Mi- 
 nifters for their refpedive Parities. 
 
 The firfl Variftan Council, which was held about 
 the Year 55:2, requires the whole Church to chufe e- 
 very Bifliop with full confent ; it rejects all put in by 
 the King, and excommunicates fuch Bifliops as re- 
 ceive 'em. •Cri/7. 6' NuUas civibus invhis crdinatur £- 
 pi f opus nifi quern populi & clerkorum EleBio, pleniffima 
 quafierit voluntate, non principis mperio. 
 
 Were this Canon obferv'd, the People muft fepa- 
 rate themfelves from all the Bifhops of England, who 
 
 t get 
 
p'efcraUe to Epfco^al. 15^ 
 
 get in by the Civil Power, and not by the free Choice 
 of all the Clergy and People- 
 
 If any fay, this was only a Provincial Council, they 
 do well to confider that the fecond general Council of 
 /Vice, held about the Y'ear 787, excommunicates all 
 that are chofen Bifliops by Magiftrates, and all that 
 communicate with fuch Bi/iiops. /^/^. Ha-ior. Refcrift- 
 ad Bonjf. 
 
 Thefe Canons fhew the Senfe and Sentiments of 
 the ancient Church about the Eleftion of Minillers, 
 which was then made by the People. 
 
 In this alfo our Ordinations are better than Epifco- 
 pal Ordinations ; Bijhops ordain [,plebe abjente~\ in the 
 Abfence of the People ; and the D^jjenters orainarily 
 \_plebe prafentar\ in the Prefence of the People ; among 
 whom their People retain their ancient Right of cha- 
 fing their own Minifters. ConciL Gen, 2. Can- 3. 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 Our Ordifiation on Week-days by Frayer and Fajf^ 
 ing, Diocefan Ordwations ufon Sunday. Faft- 
 ing improper on that Day^ and condemned by and- 
 entCotwcils, Objections anfrvered. Origind and 
 End of Fafts in the Chrifiian Church consider"* d. 
 
 ^''l'^' C\^^ Ordinations are perform'd with^- 
 ^^ lemn Fafling and Prayer, according to Apo- 
 floUcal Example, Ad. 13. and becaufe the Lord's-day 
 is not a proper Day for Fafling, it being in its Na- 
 ture a Day of Rejoycing for the greateft Deliveran- 
 ces, therefore our Ordinations are upon a Week-day. 
 Fading upon the LordWay is condemned by the 
 Ancients, nor was it us'd in the Roman Church after 
 Mekhiades his Time, who lived in the beginning of 
 the 4th Century. Mclcb. Ep. ad Efijc. Hifp. Au^ 
 
1 60 7reslytcnal Ordindtion^ 
 
 Auflin condemns it in the Trifcillianifls as a fcanda- 
 lous thing. Aug, ad Cafulan. £/. 86. 
 
 It is forbidden by the 6th general Council of Con- 
 ftantinople (had in 680) upon Pain of Deprivation to 
 Mini/lers, and Excommunication to the People. Condi. 
 Conftant^ 6. Gen. Can- 55. 
 
 The Council of G^«^r^5 which conven'd about the 
 Year 3 24, cenfures Euftachius, Bifhop of Sebajlia for 
 fading upon the Lord's-day. Socret u. ^^.vid.Concil, 
 Gangr. Can* iS. Jt quis in die Dominicor jejunaty anathe^ 
 ma fit. 
 
 But Epifcopal Ordinations are upon the Lord's-day, 
 which is not obferv'd as a Day of Fafting, or if it 
 were, I don't fee how warrantable it would be. 
 
 Oh], But the Bifhops ordain upon the Sundays im- 
 mediately following Jejunica quatuor temporuniy com- 
 monly calfd Ember Weeks, 
 
 Anfw. What Example have we in the New Tefla- 
 ment of failing one Day, and of ordaining Miniflers 
 the nextDay ? Fafting,Prayer,and Impofition of Hands, 
 were upon one and the fame Day in the Apoftle's 
 Time ; and how come thofe who would be thought 
 to be the Apoftles SuccefTors, to deviate from em } 
 
 They may as well feparate between Prayer and 
 Impofition of Hands, and appoint one Day for Pray- 
 er, another for impofing Hands, as feparate Failing 
 from Ordination. J-Vhat God has joind together^ let no 
 Man put a f under. 
 
 Obj. This way of making Minifters is very anci- 
 ent, as the Canon tells us, — 1 he ancient Fathers of 
 
 the Churchy led by the Example of the Apcfiles alotted 
 
 certain Times, in which only [acred Orders might be gi'ueny 
 (viz. the Ember Weeks) appointed in ancient Time for 
 Trayer and Fafling, purpofely for this Caiife at their fir ft 
 Inftitution. Vid. Engl- Canon. 
 
 Anfw* Let one Example be produc'd of the Apo- 
 flles allotting dated Times for Ordination, and that 
 thofe Times were the Ember Weeks. 
 
 As 
 
preferable to Rpfco^aL i6l 
 
 As to the Antiquity of 'cm in the Chriftian Church, 
 there were but three folemn yearly Fafts obferv'd be- 
 fore Pope Calixtui^s Time (who was advanced to the 
 papal Chair in 2ip) to wit, in the 4th, 7th5and loth 
 Month, according to the Jeijijl Computation ,* now 
 thefe Fails were inflitutcd, not for Ordination of 
 Minifters, as the Englijh Canon fuggcfls, but for the 
 Increafe of Corn, Wine and Oil, which Pope Califtus 
 afterwards difpos'd into the fourSeafons of the Year, 
 as Sabcllicus and others do afErm. In quatuor rejecit 
 anni ternpora. Sabel. ex Ep, 1 • Deer, Caliji, Plat, in vit» 
 Calift, 
 
 Nor did he appoint thcfc Fafts for Ordination, as 
 appears by the Decretal Epiftks that bear his Name. 
 Tropter fru^luam terya ahunJamiam, quia Jicut rep lemur 
 a Domino frumento, vino & oleo adalenda corpora, fie re- 
 pleamur jejiinio ad alendas animus ; which tells us they 
 were to implore a BleiTing upon the Fruits of the 
 Earth. 
 
 Platina fays. That fome attribute thefe Qiiarterly 
 Fafts to Pope Urban, who fucceeded Califlus about 
 the Year 225. I /hould be glad to fee it prov'd, that 
 the Authority of thefe ftated Fafts -were led by the £x- 
 ampks of the Apojile herein j as the Canon tells us they 
 were. 
 
 Leo afligns no other End to thefe Quarterly Fafts, 
 but the Mortification of the Flefh, which we fhould 
 ftudy throughout the whole Year. Vt in id ipfam to- 
 tuis anni redeunte Decurju cogmfceremus nos indefinenter pu^ 
 rificationibus indigere. De jejun. 7. Mcnf- Ser. p. 
 
 To appoint ordinary Times of neceflary and reli- 
 gious Fafting, without fpecial Caiie, was accounted 
 Herefy in Montanus by the ancient Church. Eujd\ 5. 
 1 8. Was he alfo led by the Example of the Jpoftles, to 
 make Laws for Fafting ? 
 
 U CHAR 
 
1 6 1 Treshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 Chap. VL 
 
 We ordnin Perfons to the whole Miniftry at once. 
 The Church ordains '^em only to part of their Office ; 
 frjl Deacons^ then Presbyters^ and then Bijhops. 
 No Scripture for this tripartite Ordination. The 
 fame Method of Ordination us'*d in the Church of 
 Rome, contrary to Scripture and Jntiquity. Dea» 
 cons, who were Overfeers of the Poor, made Homily 
 Readers in Cent. 5. and Bijhops made Overfeers 
 in their room. The New-Tefiament Deacons did 
 not preach as fuch. Gifted Lay -men preached in 
 the primitive Church, Deacons Servants to the 
 Presbyters. Reflections on the Form of Ordaining 
 Deacons. 
 
 Arg.Vl.r\\]K Ordinations are better than the E- 
 ^^ piTcopal Ordinations, becaufe with us 
 Terfons are ordain d to the whole Minifiry at onccy according 
 to Scripture.... We don't find there, that every Mini- 
 ftfx was ordain'd firft a Deacon, and then a Presbyter, 
 as is done in the Church of Rome, and in the C — h 
 of E — ^..... Nor do we find any one ordain'd by 
 the Apofllcs to preach and baptize, that had no 
 Power to adminifler the Lord's-Supper, as our Eng- 
 lijh Deacons are : They may preach, they may bap- 
 tize, but they mufl not adminifter the Bread and 
 Wine in the LordVSupper — they may help the 
 Prieft in the Diftribution of the Communion, but 
 they can't confecrate the Elements, or authoritatively 
 deliver them. 
 
 The fame Power is given to Popifh Deacons un- 
 der the fame Limitations of Preaching and Eaptiz.ing 
 only, Diacomm oportet miniflrare ad altare, baptiz,are 
 
 & 
 
preferable to Epifco^al. 1 6 ^ 
 
 (ir pradicare. Pontifical. Rom. What Scripture can be 
 produced for this Limitation ? Is Baptifm infcnor to 
 the Lord's-Stipper ? Are not both Seals to the fame 
 Covenant ? Did not the Lord Jefus, when he fent 
 the Apoftles to preach and haptiz^e, empower em to 
 
 give the holy Eucharifl: alfo ? Nos cum di^o Jpo^ 
 
 flolico mentem»patrum adaptij/emus, invenimus eos ejfe lo" 
 cut OS non de viris qui mini fir ant Myfleriisy fed de Mrnifte^ 
 rio quod in ufu Menfarum adhibentur.-'" Did they need 
 a new CommifTion for this ? Where fhall w& find that 
 CommifTion ? Not in the New Teflament, I'm fure. 
 
 The Apoftles Commiffion for the Work of the Mi- 
 niftry, as fuch, extends to all Minifters to the end of 
 the iVorldy (Ver, 20.) as their Succeflbrs. This is the 
 Senfe of the Ancients. Leo Ep, p2. />• 402. tx Ep. pi." 
 p. 2p6. and fuch as all Proteftants will acknowledger 
 See the Gofpel at the Ordain- Priefis. 
 
 The Scripture Deacon was appointed to fer^e Ta- 
 bles, or to overfee the Poor. Aci. 6- 2, 3. It is not 
 Reafon we jhoud leave the Word of God, andferve Tables, 
 wherefore look you out among you feven Men — whom we 
 may appoint over this Bujinefs. The Miniflry of the 
 Word, and the Service of Tables are made here tu o 
 di{\.'m&: Offices, and fuch as are inconfiftent in the or- 
 dinary Exercife of *em, and therefore the Apoflle op- 
 pofeth 'em, and appropriates the Word to Minijlers 
 properly fo call'd, and the Service of Tables to thofe 
 whom we call Deacons or Overfeers. 
 
 This is acknowledg'd by the dth general Council 
 o( Conftarainople, whofe Teftimony is more confidera- 
 ble,as not only containing the Opinion of 1 50 Bifhops 
 who lived about the latter End of the 8ch Century, 
 but affirming the Senfe of the Fathers of the former 
 Ages to be the fame with theirs. 
 
 They that drew up the Contents of our Church Bi- 
 bles, <io ground the Inftitution of Deacons upon 
 AEi. 6. See the Contents of this Chapter in our Church Bi- 
 blesy which I hope Church-men will not except againfl, 
 (ince they ufually read 'em with the Chapter. A- 
 
1 64. TPreshytenal Ordination j 
 
 Ability, or aptnefs to teach is not mention'd in 
 Scriptures among the Qaah'fications of Deacons^ as it 
 is in thofe of a Bifhop, and therefore we may con- 
 clude that teaching and preaching was no part of the 
 Office of a Deacon in the Apoftles Time, i Tim. 3. 2. 
 
 'Tis true, fome of the Greek Fathers call 'em 
 Kd>«i5, Preachers or Publifhers, not becaufe they 
 did preach the Gofpel. ComiL vafens. can. 4. but be- 
 caufe they did after the manner of the old Greeks^ com- 
 mand Silence in order to the Prayers of the Catechu- 
 mens '^a-vxU* Kxloiy.ri^vlTti*. ArifleYi. ill CoYii^il-Carth. can. 106. 
 
 1 find the)' were admitted about the middle of the 
 fifth Age to read Homilies in the Church, but only 
 in Cafes of neceflity, as when the Presbyter was 
 difabrd by reafon of fome Infirmities. 
 
 By all which it appears, that Deacons originally 
 were but Over Jeers of the Poor, to diftribute juftly and 
 diredly the Alms of the faithful, which the Apoftles 
 wou'd not trouble themfeives withal, left it fhou'd 
 hinder them in the Miniftration of the Word and 
 Prayer. 
 
 In Procefsof Time when the Revenues of the Church 
 were enlarg'd the Cafe was greatly alter'd, the Bifhops 
 affeded to be Guardians of the Poor, and to make 
 the Deacons amends, admitted 'em to baptize and 
 preach. The Bifhops omit Preaching, and become 
 Servants of Tables, and the Deacons from Serving 
 of Tables, ftep up into the Pulpit, and become 
 Preachers. 
 
 Obj. VetavJm, the Jefuit, (from whom others fince 
 have borrow'd their Arguments) takes upon him to 
 prove Dcacon(hip a Spiritual Order, and to that end 
 lie tells us, that Fhilif and Stephen were Preachers of 
 the Word. 
 
 ylnf. I anfwer, 
 
 it does not appear that either of 'em preach'd at 
 ■Jentfiilemy Stephen difputed with the JcWS there, ABs 
 ij. 5?. v/aich withe ut doubt any private Man may do 
 
 in 
 
preferable to E^ifco^aL 165 
 
 in defence of the Gofpcl, and has been often done 
 by the old Martyrs in Obedience to that Scripture 
 in I Pet, 3. 13. 
 
 Philip preach'd the Word, but it was at Samaria^ 
 after he was driven from yerufjLm, and fo ceas'd to 
 exercifc the OiTice of a Deacon there. Acls 8. 4» 5. 
 He might be advanc'd to the Degree of an Evange- 
 lift, for ought appears to the contrary. ABs 21. 8. 
 I Tim. 5. 13. 
 
 Becaufe we find him preaching fome time after 
 his being made Deacon, does it follow he preach'd 
 as a Deacon ? You may as well fay, that becaufw we 
 find a Presbyter who was a Parifh Miniiter half a 
 Year ago, now exercifing Epifcopal Jurifdidion, 
 therefore every Presbyter has Epifcopal Jurifdidion. 
 
 The Cafe is much the fame here ; Philip was a 
 Deacon to fervc Tables in ASls 6. — and fome time 
 after in ABs 8.— we find him Preaching, doth it fol- 
 low, that he preach'd as a Deacon ? when 'tis evi- 
 dent the Deacon had nothing to do with the Mini- 
 ftry of the Word. Afls 6. 2, 3. 
 
 2. Supppfe they did preach at Jerufulem^ it was 
 no more than what was done by all gifted Perfons in 
 thofe extraordinary Times. Apollos^ who was not 
 well Catechiz'd in the Word, nor was fo much as bap- 
 tized with the Baptifm of Chrifl, yet preach'd, A^s 
 j8. 24. 
 
 To be fure, he only knew Johns Baptifm, was not 
 ordain'd by any of the Apoftles ; yea, Aquila and 
 Prifcilla his Wife, inflrufted him more perfcdly in 
 the way of the Lord. 
 
 Grotius acknowledges that in thofe Circumftances? 
 of Perfecution, private Perfons might preach as wellN 
 as Deacons, Grot, in AEls 8. 5. and he quotes to that/ 
 purpofe, ABs ii. 20. 
 
 Hilariusy the Roman Deacon, goes further and faith, 
 17 ergo crefceret & multiplicaretur (ABs 6> 6.) omnibm 
 inter initia concejfum ejl, & E'vangeliz.are & Baptizare 
 
 M 3 & 
 
1 6 6 Tresbyterial Ordpiation^ 
 
 & Scrip ura5 in Ecdefia exphnaYe, i Cor. 14. 24. at 
 ubi omnia loca complexa eB Ecdefia^ conventicula conftituta 
 
 funty & reciores & catera offida in Ecdefia ordinata — 
 Hinc ergo efl^ unde nunc neq; Diaconi in pofulo pradicanty 
 neq; minores ckrici vel laici baptiz^ant. Comment, in Eph. 
 
 ■4. apud Amhr, 
 
 From this Quotation \t appears, 
 
 1. That all ^ik^d Perfons did preach and baptize, 
 and explain the Scripture, when the Church was in 
 fieri, or Infant State. The extraordinary EtFufionsot 
 the Spirit, accompanied vvith a Power of working 
 Miracles, feems to juflify that Pradice. AEls6. 8.e5r.8.6. 
 
 2. That afterwards, when thofe extraordinary Ope- 
 rations ceas'd, and the Gofpel was fpread abroad, 
 no Man muft preach without a regular Call. 
 
 ^. That Deacons did not preach in Hilary's Time, 
 (who liv'd to the latter End of the fourth Century) 
 no, not in the Roman Church. Ad hue in vivis Ann. 
 384. Cav, Cartoph. EccL 
 
 Origen, being perfecuted from Alexandria, prcach'd 
 publickly at Cafarea, tho' he was but a Lay-man, be- 
 ing defir'd fo to do by T'hecBtfius Bifhop of the 
 Place. When Demetrim of Alexandria cenfiir'd the 
 Action as irregular, TbeuSl:i[lus and Alexander Billiop 
 of Jerufale?n juftified it, and produced feveral Exam- 
 ples of the fame Nature. EufeL Ecd. Hij}/'6. 20. 
 
 A Lay-man is aJlow'd to teach at the requed of 
 the Clergy in the Council of Carthage, held about 
 the Year 45*5. Laicus prafentibus Clericis, mfi ipfis ro- 
 ganribus docere ncn audent. Carth. Concil. 4. Can. 98. 
 
 Martimanm, a Cutler, or Weapon Maker by his 
 ProfefTIon, with two Brothers of his that were pri- 
 vate Men alfo, being fold by the Vandals to a Hea- 
 then King of the Mqoys, preach'd the Gofpel to the 
 Barbarians ,• and by the Bleffing of Heai'cn upon their 
 Labours, converted vaft Multitudes of 'em to the 
 Chriilian Faith, and afterwards fent to Rome for a 
 presbyter, by whom they were baptized. ViBor de 
 Vandal, perjec. i. Fol %, When 
 
preferable to Epfcopcd. 167 
 
 When John de Belles Mayonsy Archbifhop of Lyons^ 
 inhibited Valdo^ (the Father of the IValdenfes or Van- 
 dois) from preaching, efpecially for that being a Lay- 
 Perfon, he exceeded the limits of his Profcflion and 
 Condition of Life ; Faldo reph'ed, that he could not 
 hold his Peace in a matter of fo high Importance as 
 the Salvation of Men, and that he wou*d rather o- 
 bey God who had enjoyn'd him to fpeak, than Man 
 who had commanded him to be lllent. Ferrins Hiji, 
 of the IVdld, I. I c i./'. 4. 
 
 From the whole it follows, that a private Man as 
 well as a Deacon, in times of extraordinary neceflity, 
 may preach ; and therefore Philip and Stephens preacht^ 
 ing doth not prove that Deacons may ordinarily do 
 fo, any more than private Perfons. 
 
 The ancient Deacons were the Presbyters and Bi- 
 fhops Servants* Diaconus ita fe Presbyteri & Epifcopi 
 Miniflrum effe cognofcat. cone. 4 Carth. c. 57. and might 
 not fit in the Prefence of the Presbyters unlefs defir'd 
 by em, nor fo much as fpeak in their Affemblies, 
 unlefs they were ask*d fome Qoeflions by them. 16, 
 Can. gp, 40. 
 
 The Presbyters imploy'd *em to bring the Eulogia, 
 or Confecrated Elements in the Eucharift to fuch as 
 could not be prefent at the Communion. JuRin 
 Apol. II. Ad Ant. 
 
 They might diftribute Bread to the People if Ne- 
 ceflity fo required by Order of the Pried:. They muft 
 not do this but in cafes of Nece/Iity, which juftify 
 many Things that are otherwife Unwarrantable. 
 ConciL 4. Carth. can, 38. Diaconus prafente Prcsbytero 
 Eucharifiiam corporis Chrifti populo fi neceffitas cogat jujfus 
 eroget. 
 
 If the Preaching Deacon be a Stranger to Scripture, 
 and the firft Ages of the Church, as hath been prov'd, 
 and neither Command nor Example can be produc'd 
 for the Ordaining of Perfons, firft Deacons to preach 
 and baptize, and then to make 'em Triefls by a new 
 
 M 4 Or- 
 
1 6 8 Trcslytertal Ordination. 
 
 Ordination ,• it follows, that our Ordinations are more 
 agreeable to Scripture, in which Perfons are fet apart 
 to the whole Work of the Miniftry at once. 
 
 Chap. VIL 
 
 fVhe» m ordain M'tnijlers they arefujjer^d to f reach 
 without any hindrance. Church Minifters after 
 thej are ordain^ d^ are forbid to preach without a 
 hicenfe^ which is purchased ufon pecuniary Con'- 
 Jideratio^p 
 
 Ayg^ VII. T)Erfons ordain*d by us, may freely exe^ 
 
 -t cife their Miniftry without any further Im^ 
 
 fedimentSy as it zvas in the ApoRles Time^ and long after. 
 
 But, in Epifcopal Ordinations, tho' Perfons be fo- 
 lemnly dedicated to the Miniftry, and the Bifhop 
 tells *ein, 7*ake thou Authority to preach the Wordy &c. 
 yet no Authority is given the Perfon to preach or 
 catechize, until he be Licensed by the Archbijhop or Bijhop 
 of the Diocefs under their Hands and Seals, Engl, can* ^6. 
 
 Either the Perfon ordain'd is qualified for the Work 
 of Preaching, or he is not : if he be not, why is he 
 ordain'd? if he be, why is he reftrain'd till a new 
 Licenfe be given him ? What Precedent have we ivi 
 Scripture for this ? Did the Apoftlcs fend out any in 
 this manner ; faying, T*ake Authority to preach the 
 JJ/brd. — But this Authority jh all fignifie nothing to you with" 
 cut another Licenfe under our Hands and Sealsy and till 
 thofe are obtain d you muR not Preach. Can- 49. adds, 
 that no Perfon whatfoez/er that is not Licensed as aforefaid 
 Jhall take upon him to expound in his own Cure^ or elfe^ 
 %:here, any Scripturey or Matter of Dotlrine. 
 
 It is unaccountable, that Men fhou'd be made Mi- 
 nifters by Ordination, and afterwards forbidden to 
 cxercife that which they are ordain d to. Com- 
 
prferahle to E^ifco^al. 169 
 
 Compare this Canon with the Words of Ordinati- 
 on, which are thus. — 
 
 Q. Are you determind out of the Scrif>tures to infiruEl 
 the teople committed to your Charge ? &c. 
 
 A. / have fo determind by God's Grace. 
 
 Q^lVtll you give your faithful diligence always fo to 
 Mintfter the DoHrine and Sacraments^ and the Dffcjfline 
 of Chrifl as the Lord has commanded^ ike. that you may 
 teach the People committed to your Care and Charge with 
 all diligence to keep and olferve the fame ? 
 
 A. / will fo do by the help of God. 
 
 Here the Minifter folemnly vows to inflru(5i and 
 reach the People as the Lord has commanded, and 
 yet the Canon commands him never to Preach nor 
 Expound the Scripture, or any Matter of Dodrine, 
 without an additional Power or Licenfe from the 
 Bifhop. 
 
 Why will they folemnly engage him to inRruEl and 
 teach the People out of the Scriptures • and at the fame 
 time forbid him to do it without a Licenfe ? 
 
 The Canon that reftrains Unlicensed Miniflers 
 makes the Miniftry arbitrary to the Bifhop*s Will: 
 He may bind Klen to the Office, and when he has 
 done, keep *em from the Exercife of it. 
 
 However, 'tis a prudent Provifion to avoid the 
 Guile of Simony : The B — p muft take no Money 
 for giving Holy Orders, that were to fell the Holy 
 Gholl for Money. 
 
 But he may take Money for the Licenfy and for 
 producing Letters of Orders at Visitations, and be 
 as free of the Guilt of Simony^ as the Jews were from 
 breaking the fifth Commandment by their facred 
 Corban, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
yo Treshyterid Ordination, 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
 Ordaining Vresbyters don*t pretend to confer the 
 Holy Ghofi in Ordination as the Bijhops do and 
 the Church of Rome. Thofe Minijters ufon 
 whom the Spirit isffiffosd to be confer d^ no better 
 Chrifiims than their Neighbours. 
 
 Arg' VIIL 'W/'-E dont pretend to give the Holy Ghofi in 
 ▼ ▼ Ordination : We pray that God 
 wou'd increafe the Gifts and Graces of his Spirit in 
 the Ordained, but confer 'em we cannot, nor do I fee 
 how any can now pretend to this Power without 
 great Prefumption. 
 
 But the Ordaining Bifiop feems to ajfu?ne it^ when hefaysy 
 Receive the Holy Ghofi for the Office and Work of a Frieft 
 in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the Impo^ 
 Jit ion of otir Hands. The Ord. of Priefis. Obferve here, 
 
 1. If they can give the Holy Ghoft, Wloy do they 
 not give it to the Deacon^ as ivell as to the Prieii / Is not 
 the Holy Ghoft as necellary to enable us to preach and 
 haptiz^ey which they fay is the Work of Deacons, as 
 to adminifier the Lord's Supper, which is the Work of 
 Priefis, The Deacons in AEls 6. 3* muft b^ full of 
 the Holy Ghoft. Is he become lefs necelfary now than 
 he was of old ? Or, is the Bifhop's Power of dispen- 
 fins the Spirit reftrain'd to Presbyters as the adequate 
 Objedofit? 
 
 2. It is true, the Holy GhoB was given by the 
 Hands of the Apoftles, but it was in his extraordinary 
 Gifts, that enabrd Perfons to fpcak with Tongues, 
 and to prophefy. ABs 10. 44. 45. and ip.6. If there 
 had not been fomething extraordinary in this Gift, 
 Simon Magus had never attempted to purchafe it with 
 iioney. AEis S^ 17, iS, ip. 
 
 We don't find that the Apoftles gave the Holy 
 
 Ghoft 
 
preferable to Epfco^aL I y I 
 
 Ghoft in any other Senfe: they that affirm it muft 
 prove it, as alfo that the Bifhops are the ApoftJes 
 Succeflbrs in the Plenitude of their Power, and en- 
 dued with the fame Apoftolical Character of confer- 
 ring the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Experience tells us, that the Bifhops do not give 
 the Ordinary, much lefs the Extraordinary Gifts of 
 the Holy Ghoft : for they that were ignorant, pro- 
 fane, or fuperftitious before Ordination, remain fo 
 afterwards. 
 
 We don't find any greater Mcafures of the Spirit 
 upon Perfons as they come from Epifcopal Ordina- 
 tion, than they had before. The fcandalous Lives of 
 fome Minifters that arc among us, is no very con- 
 vincing Demon ftration of the Bifhops giving the 
 Holy Ghoft in Ordination. 
 
 3. In Popifh Ordinations,thc ordaining Bifhop pre- 
 tends to confer the fame Gift, in thefe Words : Re- 
 ceive thou the Holy Ghofl, whofe Sins thou remitteft, are 
 remitted^ .... Accipe Spirltum SanBum, quorum remiferis 
 feccata, remittuntuY eisy & quorum retineris retenta funt. 
 Pontif. Rom, 
 
 The Popifh Fathers of Trent affert the fame Power, 
 and denounce a grievous Curfe upon thofe that deny it 
 ^...Let him, fay they, he accurfed who affirms y that the Holy 
 Ghoft is not given by /acred Ordination. Si quis dixerit 
 per facram Ordinationem, non dari Spiritum SanEliimy ac 
 
 proinde fruftra Epifcopos dictre^ accipe Spiritum SanSium 
 
 Anathema fit. 
 
 For all this Curfe, Dr. Fulk pleads common Expe- 
 rience againft the Rhemifts, who affirm, that the 
 Grace of the Spirit is given by Impofition of Hands 
 in Ordination. Thus he, But that any fuch Grace is 
 giuen by your Sacrament of Orders^ we cannot fee by £x- 
 perience. For he that was an unlearned Afs before he was 
 made Prieft, is made no better than Sir John Lack Latin 
 by his Order of Priefthood. Fulk. in i Tim. 4. §. 16. 
 Morinm acknowledgeth that the Words, IRecipe Spi- 
 
 f vitum 
 
\ni Treshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 ritum SanBuin] Heceive the Holy Ghofi, are not four Imn- 
 dred Tears old m the Church ; they were us'd before not im- 
 peratorie, l^ut precaritorie ,* they did not pretend to 
 confer, but only pray'd unto God to give the 
 Holy Ghoft unto the Perfon ordaind, De Sacr. 
 EccL Orditif 
 
 The Ordainers can t fay they mean the Office of 
 the Miniftry by the Holy Gholl, whom they pretend 
 to^ive; foe they fay. Receive the Holy Ghoft for the 
 Office. 
 
 Were Bifhops able to confer. the Holy Ghoft in a 
 greater Meafure than Presbyters, their Ordinations • 
 would be more eligible ,• but if it be otherwife, that 
 is, that they don't confer the Spirit of Ordination, 
 as the Office of Ordination fays they do, then are 
 our Ordinations better. 
 
 HAP, 
 
 IX. 
 
 V 
 
 Treshyteridns ordain accordwg to Scrifture-Model 
 Bfjhops add other Ceremomes. An odd CUufe in 
 the Deacon*s Commiffion confider'^d. Both their 
 And Preshyters Commtffions conditionaly and depen^ 
 dant on the Bijhofs Will. 
 
 Arg.lX.'\T7£) ufe m Ceremonies in Ordination^ lutthofe 
 VV that are mention d in Scripture, We don't 
 find any Ceremony us'd by the Apoftles, in the fet- 
 ting apart of Minifters, befides Impofition of Handsy 
 accompany'd with Fafting and Vrayer. 
 
 But the Bifhop at Ordination, delivers the New- 
 Teftament into the Hands of the Deacon, faying, 
 'fake thou Authority to read the Gnfpel, and to preach the 
 fame, if thou he thereto Ucens'd by the Bijhop himfelf. 
 
 He 
 
preferable to Epfco^al. i y ^ 
 
 He; delivers a Bible into the Hand of the Presby- 
 ter, faying > l^ake thou Authority to f reach the Word of 
 Gody and to Mimfter the Holy Sacraments in the Congre- 
 gation. 
 
 But why a New-Teftament only to the Deacon, 
 and not a whole Bible ? May he not read the Old 
 Teftament alfo ? Is there no Gofpel there ? Or is he 
 more a Minifter of the New Teftainent, than a Pref- 
 byter ? St. Paul thought it a Charader becoming e^en 
 an Apoftle, to be a Minifter of the New-Tcftament. 
 2 Cor. 3. 6. 
 
 The Words of the Deacon*s Commiflion arc fin- 
 gular, and without Precedent in that Book which is 
 delivered to him — T'ake Authority to preachy if thou 
 be thereto licensed ; that is^ take Authority to preach, if 
 thou canfi get it. Is not his Ordination a fufEcient 
 Licenfe ? 
 
 The ComnufTion of the Presbyter feems to be more 
 abfolutcj and yet, // thou be licensed is implied there 
 alfo, as appears by the Canon, which fays, No Per- 
 fon Jhall be admitted to any Ecclejiaftical Living, nor fuf^ 
 ferd to preach — except he be licensed. Can. 36. 
 
 So that both their Commiflions to preach are con- 
 ditional, and depend upon the Bifhop*s Pleafure. 
 
 The Presbyter hath the Old Teftament delivered 
 to him, befides what is deliver'd to the Deacon ; and 
 he has this in his Commiffion above a Deacon, viij. 
 'fake Authori?y to minifler the Holy Sacraments, &c. How 
 comes the Old Teftament to refer to the Sacraments 
 of the New Teftament ? 
 
 We don't find that the Apoftles us'd this Ceremo- 
 ny. It may be thought very innocent, but it would 
 be more innocent to retain the Apoftoiical Simplicity 
 of the Gofpel Ordinances, and not add our Inven- 
 tions to Divine Inftitutions. 
 
 It is true, this Ceremony was us'd with fome Va- 
 riation in the fourth Age. Counc. Carthag. 4. Can. 2. 
 Then the Book was put upon the Head of the Perfon 
 
 * to 
 
I y^- TPreshytericd Ordination^ 
 
 to be ordain'd. — But what Authority had they from 
 Chrift or his Apoftles for the iife of it ? 
 
 By the fame Reafon, that the Bifbops ufe this Ce- 
 remony? thePapifts ufe many more, which they judge 
 as innocent and fignificant as the delivering of a Book 
 can be. 
 
 They anoint the Priefls Hands with holy Oil, to 
 fignify the Anointing of the Holy Ghoft, which the 
 Bifliop pretends to give 'em. What Argument can be 
 us'd againft one Ceremony, which can't be equally 
 urg d againft the other > If it be faid, the Apoftles 
 did not anoint the Hands of fuch as were ordain'd ; 
 very true, no more did they put a Book into their 
 Hands. Vno abfurde datOy mille fequuntur — 
 
 Open the Door for one fignificant Ceremony, and 
 you make room for many more infignificant ones to 
 enter. If one myftical Ceremony may be added for 
 the Decency of an Ordinance, why nqf. two to make 
 it more decent, and fo forward to the end of the 
 Chapter. I'll conclude this Head in the Words of 
 Dodor Fulky againft the RhemifJsy who defend the 
 Popifh Ceremonies us'd in the Roman Ordinations ; 
 77?^ true Church of Chrift (faith he) fuhmits her felf to 
 the DoElrine of. Chrift, and his Apoftles in all things, and 
 is content ivith thofe Ceremonies which ChriR and his 
 Apoftles y by his Commandmenty have left unto her, Fulk* in 
 Tom, 4. §. 18. 
 
 Upon this Account our Ordinations are better than 
 the Epifcopal, becaufe we keep more clofe to the Pri- 
 mitive Apoftolical Simplicity in Ordinations 
 
 CHAP. 
 
p-eferahk to Epfco^d. I y5 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 H^e orda'm Ferfons Minifters in the Language of the 
 New Teftame^t. Bijhops ordain 'em to the Order 
 of Priefihood. Reajons to prove the Abfurditj cf 
 that Pra^ice. 
 
 Arg. X. 'WT''^ ordain to the Office of the Minifiry as 
 » V fuch in the Language cf the New Tefia-' 
 ment ; butthe Bifhops, in ordaining Minifters, admit 
 'em to the Order of Vrieflhood^ as they call it. The 
 words Prieflhood and Vrieft are us'd five or fix times 
 in their Form of Ordination. 
 
 The Reformers of the Common^Prayer-Book in 
 1(5625 chang'd the word Minifters irtto that of Vriefly 
 at leaft in five places ; in the Abfolutiony in the Refpon- 
 fes, in tbe Litany^ and at the Communnion^ &c. 
 
 I find the Rhemijh Seminary very angry with our 
 firft Reformersy for tranflating tr^sa-^uTt^a Elder, and not 
 Frie/i, fuch Corruption of Scriptures, Jay they, their hatred 
 of PrieWhood drives ^em to. 
 
 Our Bleffed Reformers had reafon to hate the Topijh 
 Prieflhood, as being Idolatrous ; why the late Reformers 
 of our Liturgy fhou'd rather be call'd Priefts than Mi- 
 nifters or Elders, is, I think, what their Admirers 
 Ihou'd account for. Rhem. in AEl. 14./. 4. 
 
 The Rhemifts go on to cenfure our Tranflators for 
 not rend ring Presbyter PrieR : This is to take away the 
 office of Sacrificing,and other FunElions of Priefts, fay they. 
 Dr. Fulk anfwereth, The Reafon why we avoid the Name 
 of Priefts, is becaufe it is by common ufe taken to fignifie 
 the Priefts of the Law, whofe Nayne is never in the New 
 T*eft anient given to the Minifters of the Church, ibid. 
 
 We judge it very improper to retain the Names of 
 Priefts and Prieflhood, for thefe Reafons ; Becaufe, 
 
 I. All Proteflants confefs, that the Office of the 
 
 Mini- 
 
176 Treshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 Miniftry is not a real Priefthood. Wc read but of 
 two Orders of Priefthood, properly fo callM, njtz,. 
 'The Order of Mekhiz^deky of which Chrift is the only 
 Prieft ; and the Order of Aaroriy which is now abo- 
 lifh'd ; together with that Oeconomy to which it 
 did belong. To revive that PrieBhoody were to deny 
 that Chrift is come in the Flefh, as the Apoftle dif- 
 courfeth at large in his Epiftle to the Hebrews. Now 
 when we all difown the thing, why fhou'd we affed 
 the Name ? Nomina funt rerum Nota & Symhola. 
 
 Hath not the New Teftament furnifli'd us with 
 variety of more fignificant Names to exprefs that Sa- 
 cred Office by, fuch as Paftors, Teachers, Presby- 
 ters, Bifhops, Minifters ? &c, 
 
 Why fhou*d Men covet to fpeak in the Language of 
 Mofes rather than in the Language of ChrifJ and his 
 Apoftles ? 
 
 The Deacon has the New Teftament deliver'd him 
 in Ordination, with a New Teftament Name, and 
 the Prieft hath the Old Teftament alfc, with an Old 
 Teftament Name ; it is unaccouutable that any Chri-- 
 ftian fhou'd be fo averfe to New Teftament Lan- 
 guage — efpccially ii we confider, «» 
 
 2. The Word FrieR is never us'd in the New Te- 
 ftament to fignifie the Minifters exclufive of the Veo- 
 fk. St. Teter calls the Body of Chriftians> a Holy 
 Prieflhoody and that as diftinguifhed from their Mini- 
 fters. I Tet. 2. $- I Pet,^. I. fo he calls the People 
 God's xA«f©-, God's Clergy, i Fet:. 5. 3. Hence the word 
 Clergy ; which Senfe has been appropriated to Mini-i 
 fters. Did Men love the Scriptures more, and Mens' 
 Traditions Icfs, there would be no Controverfy about 
 thefe things. 
 
 St. John calls thofe whom Chrift hath wafh'd witli 
 his Blood, by the Names of Kings and Prieflsy Rev. 
 
 I. $y 6. 
 
 If the Holy Ghoft never calls Gofpel Minifters as 
 fuch in the New Teftament by the Name of Priefli, 
 
 why 
 
 \ 
 
preferable to Epjco^al. I yy 
 
 why /hou'd we do it ? are we wifer than the Foun- 
 tain of Wifdom? 
 
 g. The Papifts abufe his Name to the moft abomi- 
 nable Idolatry of the Majs. They ordain all their 
 Shavelings to the Office of the Priefihood, to offer up 
 their Bread-Idol a,s a real Sacrifice for the dead and li- 
 ving. The Council of Trent anathematizeth all that 
 fay, there is no vifible and external Priefihood in the 
 New Teftament. De facr. ord. can. i. 
 
 Let Rome glory in her Priefls, who take upon 'em 
 to facrifice the real Body of Clirifl in their Mafsy as 
 they do his myflical Body in their Maffacres. 
 
 But it becomes not us who under the Gofpel 
 know neither Priefihood, nor Altar, nor Temple, 
 befides Jefus Chrifl, to fy mbolize with an Idolatrous 
 Church, which hates all Compliances with us, tho* vci 
 the mod innocent Things. 
 
 The Reformed Churches abroad have abolifh'd this 
 Name ; and are offended with the Englifi for ufing 
 it ; but fome People had rather fpeak in the Dialed 
 of Rome than of the Reformed Churches, in Confor- 
 mity to Chrifl and his Apoflles. 
 
 HAP. 
 
 XI 
 
 We ordain Mtnljlers to the whole Minijlerial JVorkj 
 and not deprive "^em afterwards of any Part thereof^ 
 as the Presbyters of the Church are^ Church Mi- 
 nifiers^ the Chancellors Servants, The narrow 
 Way made broad by the Burial Office. Pulpit Threat* 
 ningi recanted at the Grave. Charity transformed 
 into Cruelty, Presbyters roVd of their Governing 
 Power ^contrary to Scripture and Jnti^uity, 
 
 Arg' XL f~\^^ Miniflers are ordain d to the 'whole Mi* 
 
 ^^ nifterial fVork, and no {art of it taken from 
 
 \m afierivards, N Put, 
 
1 7 S Trcshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 But it is otherwife in Epifcopal Ordinations : The 
 Ordainers commit the Keys of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven to the Presbyters, faying, whofe Sins )e forgrje, 
 they are forgiven, and whofe Sms yc retain, they are retain d. 
 They giwt 'em Power to Mimjler the DoElrine andSa- 
 cramentSy and the Difcipline of ChriR as the Lord has 
 commanded, &c. But they deprive them afterwards of 
 the Power of Difcipline, and entrufl em with no 
 judicial Adminiftration in the Church. 
 
 The Presbyters have no Power left 'em to judge 
 whom to baptize, and whom not, but muft baptize 
 all that arc ofter'd, tho' the Children of Jews, Infi- 
 dels, Deifts, Papifts, ^'C Engl can. 6^- No Minifter 
 fhall refuje to chriftsn any Child according to the Form cf the 
 Book of Common Prayer that is brought to the Church, if 
 he refufe he fiall he fufpended for three Months » 
 
 They have no Power to forbear giving the Lord's 
 Supper to any one, how notorious an Offender fo- 
 ever, unlefs they will profecute him at the Bifhop's 
 Court : nor then, but for once,- fo that if he pay his 
 Fees and be abfolv'd there, tho' the Minifter know 
 him to be never fo bad, he muft gi\t it him the next 
 time. And the Profecution is fo odious and fruitlefs, 
 that it is very rarely attempted. 
 
 They have no Power to call Perfons to Repentance 
 openly before the Church. 
 
 They have no Power to judge any Perfon to be 
 excommunicate, nor to abfolve any Perfon that is 
 penitent after Excommunication, only they read the 
 Lay-Chancellor's Sentences, fentthem in the Bifhop's 
 Name, much h'ke our Cryersin Civil Courts that pub- 
 lifh the Orders of the Court. Yea, tho' they are 
 fatisficd in their Confciences that the Chancellor's De- 
 cree is fometimes unjuft, and clive err ante, excommu- 
 nicating a confcientious Perfon for fcrupling a Cere- 
 mony, or abfolving an impendent Perfon v/ho has 
 commuted for notorious Scandal, yet they muft pub- 
 lifh it or be fufpended : 
 
 How 
 
preferable to EpfcofaL 179 
 
 How inconfiflent is this Rcftraint with the Power 
 of remitting and retaining SinSj given them in Ordi^ 
 nation ? All the Power left 'em is the Privilege of be- 
 ing the Chancellor's Servants, to execute their De- 
 crees, without examining whether they be right or 
 wrong. 
 
 They have no Power to forbear pronouncing of 
 all Traytors, Murderers, Adulterers, Drunkards, Op- 
 preffors, Papifts, Atheifls, perjured Perfons, &c. (that 
 never profefs'd Repentance) at their Burial, That 
 God of his Great Mercy hath taken to himfelf the Soul of 
 our dear Brother here departedy and that they have fur^ 
 and certain hope of his RefurreSiion to eternal Life. Can. 
 eS. & office for Burial. 
 
 All that die in the Communion of the Church, and 
 don't lay violent Hands upon themfelves, tho' they 
 ]ive never fo wickedly, and die never fo impenitently, 
 go one way, (according to the Office for Burial) and 
 that is the narrow Way to Life, which but few found 
 in the Days of Chrill, (Mat. 7. i ^, 14.) but now all 
 find (it the Miniffer may be bcliev'd at the Grave) 
 that have the Happincfs to be in the Communion of 
 the Church of England, and don't forfeit the Benefit 
 of Chriflian Burial by Excommunication or Self-Mur- 
 der, which few People do, except they be in a fren- 
 zy, and fo make themfelves away, or next Degree to 
 it, in not buying off a damnable Excommunication, 
 if they happen to fall under it, which is but rarely, 
 for fome notorious Debaucheries. 
 
 It is the Opinion of Bifliop Jer^ Taylor, Dr. Sher- 
 lock, and fome others of the Church-Communion, 
 that there is no fuch thing as faving Repentance up- 
 on a Death- bed, and i^ fo, what ground of fure and 
 ce-itain Hope can there be of the Salvation of thofe 
 yvho liv'd impenitently, while they enjoy 'd Health and 
 Opportunities of Sinning? According to the Scrip- 
 tures, and the tendered Sentiments of judicious Cafu- 
 ifts, we may conclude that the greater part of thofe 
 
 N 2 who 
 
1 8 o Treshytertal Ordination^ 
 
 who live in open Contradiction to the Laws of the 
 
 Gofpel to the very laft, die under the incurable 
 Plague of a hard Heart, and leave us no vifible 
 ground oi fiire and certain Hope concerning their Salva- 
 tion. Ef,6. 9i 10. TroV' i. 24, 25, 28. Zach. 7. 12513- 
 Job. 8. 24. 
 
 It is true, we ought to judge charitably concern- 
 ing Mens final State, but Charity is no excufe for 
 dangerous Error and Falfhood. It can't be denied 
 that the Clergy in their Sermons and Writings con- 
 demn abundance, whom at the Grave they pronounce 
 faved. What a hard'ning is it to the Wicked when 
 they hear the fame Men, that in the Pulpit threaten 
 Damnation to them, recant it all in their Applicati- 
 on at the Grave, and pronounce them faved. 
 
 But to return from this Digreflion : The Presby- 
 ters are made meer Curates to the Bifhops, and di- 
 verted of that Power of the Keys, [or Difcipline] 
 which Chrift committed to all Minifters equally, and 
 are exprefly given them in Ordination, in thofe 
 Words, ivhcfe Sins foever ye remit jh all he remitted^ &c. 
 Vid, Vr. for B'fpi. and Curates in the Liturgy. 
 
 InJJjorty the Deacons are made half Priejisy and the 
 Priefts but half Presljters, for they are deprived of the 
 Tower of Difcipline, which yet is pretendedly given 'em 
 in Ordination, and which is really given them in Scrip- 
 ture, and which they enjoy 'd in the Primitive Church. 
 Bafil. de vit. fol- cap. 23. Presbyter licet, fi peccaverOy 
 tradere me fatan^. £"/. ad Heliod. 
 
 I. As to the Scripture, I fliall only note thefe two 
 following ones, which inverts Presbyters with the 
 Government of the Church, Hehr. 13. 17. All fuch 
 as ivatch over t )e Scuts of God's People, and mu(l give 
 account to God for them, are intitl'd to rule over them. 
 Now unlefs Bifhops will fay they only watch for 
 Mens Souls, and are the only Men that murt give 
 an account, they cannot challenge to themfelves the 
 folc Rule over them. So i \thef 5. 12, Know them which 
 
 lalfour 
 
f referable to Ej)ifco^aL 1 8 1 
 
 lal;our among you [<? «?e>/f»/4''»5] and are o'ver you, or have 
 the Prefidency over you, and admomjJ) you. In this 
 one Church of 'thcffalonka there was not, o^aoKr\cci^<^, 
 but oi <zs^L<r\oL/j^oi Not one chief Bifhop or Prefident, 
 but the Prefidency was in many. This Preiidency 
 [or Government] was in them that labour d among them 
 as the Presbyters did. 
 
 And the Cenfures of the Church were manag'd not 
 by one chief [<5'€9.o-';^^®-] Prefident, but by all in com- 
 mon who were to be efteem'd alike. Bafily who liv'd 
 Ann. Dom. 3 70. upon the Words of Chrill: to Peter^ 
 feed my Sheep, hath this Remark — He bath comtnitted 
 the fame Vovser to all Pajiors and Teachers, of luhkh this 
 is a convincing Evidence, that they do all equally bind and 
 loofe as well as he. 
 
 2. As to Antiquity, I'll mention one Paflage in Je:^ 
 rem. If I fin, the Presbyter may, faith he, de/jver me 
 to Satan. The old Canons give to the Presbyters e- 
 qual Power with the Bifhop in Church Cenfures, that 
 he could do nothing without their Concurrence. Cone. 
 4. earth, can. 23. 
 
 Doth not the Nature of the thing inform us who 
 are beft able to judge of the fitnefs of Perfons to be 
 admitted, and who fhou*d be kept out; the Parifh 
 Minifter who has perfonal Knowledge of his Flock, 
 or the Bifhop that lives twenty or thirty Miles off, 
 or it may be at London, and pollibly hath never feen 
 their Faces } 
 
 If Mens Prejudices wereremov'd, the Truth wou'd 
 fhine forth in its own native light. 
 
 Upon this Account alfo our Ordinations are better, 
 becaufe all the Minifterial Power is confer'd without 
 arbitrary Limitations or Reftridions of Minifters in 
 their Oifice. 
 
 N 5 CHAP^ 
 
1 8 2 Treshyterial Ordination^ 
 
 Chap. XIL 
 
 Vl^e ddn*t frvear thofe we ordain to yield Ohedience 
 to their Ordainers^ as Proteflaf7t md Popifl? Bi* 
 /hops do. No Precedeifit for this Ecckfia/lical Oath- 
 in the New TeflAment^ nor for joo Tears after 
 CJ)riJt, No Englifh Statute for it. Presbyters 
 harder ty'^d than hired Servants. This Oath in-^ 
 I'ented by Novatus the Heretick, This enjlaving 
 Cujlom fraclis'^d in the eighth LerHury, Frc^nce 
 infected with tt^ condemned by the Council of Cha- 
 lons. Conclufwn, 
 
 A^g' XII. 'TpHere is one thing more in which our 
 -I Ordinations have the Preference of 
 Epifcopal Ordination ; We adminifier no Oath to the 
 Perfons Ordain d, to oblige ''em to depend upon their Or- 
 dainersy and to yield to them Canonical Obedience^ as th^ 
 Bijhops do. For among other folemn Promifes, which 
 the [Epifcopal] Minifter makes before God and the 
 Congregation, this is one ; T'hat he will Obey his Or^ 
 dinary. The Bijhop asks him, Will you reverently Obey 
 "your Ordinary^ that is your Bifiop, and other chief Mini* 
 fters unto whom is committed the Charge and Government 
 over youy following with a glad Mind and Will their 
 Godly Admonitionsy and fubmitting yourjelves to their God^ 
 ly judgments. 
 
 The Priefl anfwers, 1 will jo do, the Lord being my 
 helper^ This is the very fame with th^ Promife made 
 
 by 
 
preferable to Epfcopal. l 8 ^ 
 
 by Pofi/h Priefts at their Ordination to obey their 
 Ordinary. The Ordainer asks them one by one, 
 M/iI/ you promife Reverence and Obedience to me and my 
 Suaejfors ? To which the Vriefl anfwers, / will. Fro- 
 mittrs ml hi & fuaejfonbus meis reverent mm & obedient i-' 
 am ? promitto. 
 
 The Bifhop asks every one of the Regular Clergy, 
 JVillyou promife to Reverence and Obey your Bifhop or Pre* 
 late, your Ordinary for the time being /* To which he 
 anfwers, / xu/7/. promittis pontifici, vel pr^Jato^ ordina- 
 Yio tuo, pro tempore exiftenti, reverentiam & obedientiam ? 
 promitto. Pontif. Rom. de ord. presb. 
 
 The Form of the Oath which they impofe upon the 
 Englifi Clergy is this, 
 
 / A. B. do fwear i^hat I will perform Tiue and Canon J" 
 cal Obedience to tbe Bifhop of N. and to his Succeffors in all 
 I'hings lawful and honefi. Ego A. B. juro quod prafiabo 
 veram & canonicam obedientiam Epifcopo N. ejufq-, Succef- 
 foribus in omnibus licitis & honeflis. 
 
 The Obedience requir'd in this Oath is Canonical 
 Obedience, or Obedience according to the Canons". 
 Thefe are the Laws by which they openly profefs to 
 rule the Church. And tho* the Words Godly AdmO' 
 nitions (or licitis & honeflis) be put in, they fignifie no 
 more than that our Obedience according to the Ca- 
 nons is godly, lawful and honeft, and not that we 
 are left to chufe which Canons we will obey ; for 
 there is no Canon that concerns the Clergy, but they 
 are punifhable for the Breach of it, which luppofcs 
 an Obligation to Obedience. 
 
 But let us fee upon what grounds the Bifhop ad- 
 minifters this Oath of Obedience to his Clergy. 
 
 I. What Precedent is there for this Oath and Re- 
 cognition? Let 'cm produce, if they c:xn, fome Exam- 
 ple in the New T'eftament for thislmpofition ? Did the 
 Apoftles fwear all the Presbyters they made, reverent- 
 ly to obey them } I trow not. How come fallible 
 
 N 4 Men 
 
184 Trcshyterial Ordination. 
 
 Men to fwear tiiofs of the fame Order with them to 
 obey their Decrees, when the Apoftles, thofe infallible 
 Dodors of the Church, lay no fuch Yoke upon any 
 Minifter? They difclaim all Dominion over Peoples 
 Confcienccs, and wou*d not lord it over God's He- 
 ritage,' by adminiftring Oaths unto *em. This had 
 been to incroach on the Rights of Cafar* 2 Cor. 1. 
 24. • Pet.^. 3. 
 
 If the Bifhops can't bring a Scripture Example for 
 this O'lth of Ecclefiafiical Allegiance^ we wou*d defire 
 'em to fhew us fome Example or Command in the New 
 Te/lament, requiring one ordinary Minifter reverently 
 to obey another. 
 
 3. Or if they can't do that, let 'em fhew one ap- 
 proved Example for this Oath, within the compafs 
 of the firft 300 Years after Chrift. So far were they 
 from impoiing it then, that we can produce Multi- 
 tudes of Inftances, wherein the Bifhops and Fathers 
 of thofe early Ages, and fome of the next alfo, con- 
 demn all Oaths as inexpedient, if not unlawful. Vid. 
 Naz,ian. Orat, 45. Clem^Alex^ Strom. 7. />. 150. 
 
 4. If they can't produce any approved Examples 
 of this Oath in the firft Centuries, we defire to 
 know by what Authority they do adminifter it ? 
 Not by virtue of the AEl of JJniformity^ that makes 
 no mention of it : Nor does any other Statute men- 
 tion it, tho' there were feveral Statutes that were 
 made in favour of Bifhops, both before and fince the 
 Reformation. Nor can they derive their Power to 
 adminifter this Oath from the Canons of 1^03, for 
 they fpeak nothing of it. 'Tis a precarious Power 
 indeed, that is warranted neither by divine nor human 
 Laws. 
 
 5. What has been faid m the former part againft 
 the Popijh Oath of Obedience, which is taken by the 
 Priefts to their BiHiops, may be applied to this as 
 being both of the f^rae Original, having no Foun- 
 dation 
 
p'eferalle to E^ifco^al. 1 8 5 
 
 dation in Scripture or the pureft Antiquity, but in- 
 vented by ambitious Prelates to bring the Presbyters 
 in Subjection, who by this Device are made their 
 /worn Servants ; nay, hired Servants are not fo fl-ri(5t- 
 ly tyed to their Maflers, as the Prieds are to their 
 Ordinaries or Ordainers. 
 
 Menial Servants are not bound by Oath as the 
 Clergy are, fo that a Pari£h-Prieil is in Tome Refpeds 
 more a Servant of the Bifhop, than the meanelt hi- 
 red Servant is to his Mafter. 
 
 6. The hrft Inftance that I can find of an Oath re- 
 quir'd by ambitious Prelates to bind Perfons to their 
 Communion, is that of Nwjatus the Heretick, who 
 fwore all his Communicants not to return to Cornelia 
 m Bifhop of Rome, which was about the Year of 
 Chrifl 251. Pld. Epift. corn, ad Fab. Antioth, in Eufeb. 
 Eccl Hi ft, 6. 43. 
 
 It was feveral hundred Years after, before the Bi- 
 fhops of Rome took up this Praftice, to oblige Men 
 to their Intcrefts, under the Name of that of the 
 Church. 
 
 The firfl of this kind that I meet with, is in the 
 beginning of the eighth Century, concerning an Oath 
 of Obedience taken by IVilfrid, alias Boniface, Bifhop 
 of Ment7. (about the Year yipj to Pope Gregory the 
 Second, who was the great Patron of Images, who 
 excommunicated the Orthodox Leo, the Third Empe- 
 ror, and drtw Ita^y from his Obedience, becaufe he 
 was againft Images. IVilfridy alias Boniface^ took the 
 Oath following to that Pope. 
 
 ' I Boniface, by the Grace of God, do promife to 
 
 * thee Veter, Prince of the Apoftles, and to thy Vicar 
 
 * Pope Gregory and his SucceiTors, by the Father, 
 
 * Son, and Holy Ghoft, the infeparable Trinity, and 
 
 * this moft Holy Body of thine, that I will exhibit 
 ' all Faith and Purity of Holy Catholick Faith, and 
 ' in Unity of the fame Faith by the helo pf God 
 
 ' will 
 
1 8 6 Trcshyterial Ordination ^ 
 
 < will perfift, and will no way confent, whoever per- 
 
 * fuade me againft the Unity of the common and 
 
 * univerfal Church ; but as I faid, will exhibit my 
 
 * Faith, and Purity, and Concurrence to thee, and 
 
 < to the Interefts of thy Church, to whom the Power 
 ^ of binding and loofing is divinely given, and to 
 
 < thy aforefaid Vicar and Succeflbr in all Things. 
 
 * Bin.p' 178. 
 
 By means of this Oath, the Nations were made 
 fubjed to Rome Antichriftian, in a leffer time than 
 they were to Rome Pagan. Hence Dr. IVillet makes 
 this Oath a Mark of A^uichrifl. Synops. contr. 4. q. 10. 
 the True Church, which fubfifted in all Ages, had no 
 recourfe to this politick Method. 
 
 Some Bifliops in France following this Example, 
 affected the like Dominion over the Confciences of 
 their Brethren, and requir'd an Oath of them at their 
 Ordination, viz,. 
 
 'That they fioud do nothing againft the Canons^ and that 
 they xuoud be Obedient to the Bijhops -who ordain d 'erriy 
 and to the Church in xmich they were ordain d. 
 
 The Council of Chalons, which was call'd by the 
 Order of Charles the Great, in the Year 813. con- 
 demns this Oath 05 dangerous, and enjoynd the BijhGVs 
 not to require it of their Clergy for the future. Qiiod ju- 
 ramentum, quia periculofum efly omnes una inlnbendum 
 jiatuirnm, Concil. Cabilon. can. 1 3. 
 
 Qt^^rey Whether the Oath which Englifi Clergy- 
 men take to Obey the Bifhops, does not deferye 
 the Confideration of a Proteftant Council, if not of a 
 Pritijh Parliament ? 
 
 The End of the Third Tart. 
 
THE 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 O F 
 
 OR D I N A T I O N. 
 
 Begu» by the late Reverend Mr. James Owen. 
 J'/2d now Publtjh'd hj Cha. Owen. 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 ■ ■■■■'■ ' ... » 
 
^^ J 
 

 Ch 
 
 A P. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Opinion of contending Parties confider^d ; the 
 
 Cafe fiated in fever al Propofitions, 
 I. The Power of Ordination originally in Qhrifi\ 
 
 Ordainers only deliver PoffeJJion, 
 , 'Jefus Chrifl ordained the Jfoflles. 
 , The Jpofiks ordained Pres^ters or Bijhops. 
 . Thefe Presbyters or Bijhops governed the Churches^ 
 
 proved firfi from Scripture^ illuflrated in five 
 
 Things. Two Obje^ions anfwer'd. Second from 
 
 Antiquity. 
 , Presbyters intrufled with the Ordaining Power ^ 
 
 proved by Scripture Inflames. 
 , The Jpoflles ordained fever d Presbyters or B/- 
 
 fl)op5^ in particular Churches. 
 . Jfter the Jpofiolical Jge, one Presbyter or Bi- 
 
 /hop was fet over the reft. One Church had fever al 
 
 Btfhops. 
 
 Will not here enter into the Contro. 
 verfie about the Ordination of Mi- 
 niflers, whether the Power of Or- 
 daining be vefted in Diocefan Bi- 
 fhops, or in Presbyters, or in both ; 
 but I will briefly confider what may 
 be fairly alledg'd from Scripture and 
 the Records of Antiquity in favour of each Partv, 
 and refer the Judgment of the whole to the impar- 
 tial Reader. ^ 
 
 They 
 
1 90 I he Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 They that plead for the Power of Presbyters to 
 Ordain, urge the Identity of Biihops and Presbyters 
 in the New Teflament ; that Presbyters have all a- 
 long concur'd with Bi/hops in Ordaining, and do in 
 the Church of England to this Day; and that Ordi- 
 nation by Presbyters can't be fairly denied without 
 Unchurching all the Reform'd Churches beyond Sea, 
 who have no Bifhops. 
 
 Thofe that aflert the neceffity of Epifcopal Ordi- 
 nations, fay, that the Apoftles referv'd the Govern- 
 ment of the Church in their own Hands while they 
 lived ; that they confign'd this Power not unto Pref- 
 byters, but unto Bifhops, whom they ordain'd in all 
 Churches to fucceed them in the Ecclefiaftical Go- 
 vernment, as they did "fmothy at Epbefiti, I'ltm at Crete^ 
 &c. that the Power of Ordination, which was exer- 
 ciied by Timothy and l^itus, and not by the Presbyters, 
 belongs to the Bifhop alone, and is appropriated to 
 them by the old Canons, and the general Practice of 
 ail Chriftian Churches in ail Ages, until near Two 
 Hundred Years ago, Luther and other Reforming 
 Presbyters ufurp'd the Ordaining Power. 
 
 The Popifh Writers, Ttmiamis, Bellarmin, Petavi- 
 us an d others of that Communion, who are follow'd 
 Ijy fome of our own, condemn all Ordinations by 
 Presbyters as Nullities, and make Epifcopal Orders 
 effential to the Being of Churches and Sacraments. 
 
 Others, on the contrary, reject Ordination by Bi- 
 fhops of the modern Species as Unfcripturai and 
 Antichriftian. Where then lliall we find true Mini- 
 fters ? If we be determin'd by the Judgment of the 
 Ccnforious and Bigotted of either fide, we may 
 fooner loofe the Miniflry it (d^ than fettle our Con- 
 fciences, for though Extremes feem very diflant, it*s 
 an eafie and lliort Step from one to the other. They 
 who in one Humour acknowledge no Miniflers but 
 fuch as bear the Epifcopal Charader, will in another 
 Mood be as ready to appropriate the Ordaining 
 
 \ Power 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination, i ^ i 
 
 Power to Presbyters, and by another turn of Thought 
 to difown both, as fome among us have done. 
 
 Forthe neceffary and jull Vindication of all the Re- 
 formed Churches, namely, the Epifcopal, whofe Mi- 
 nifters are made by Bifhops, and the Antiepifcopal, 
 whofe Minifters are ordained by Presbyters, I will 
 ^ivQ a fhort Hiilory of the Ordniation of Minifters 
 in thefe following Propofitions. 
 
 Prop. I- T'he Power of Ordination is Originally and 
 Authoritatively in the Lord Jefus Chrif?. Gofpel Mini- 
 fters are his Servants. They derive their Qualificati- 
 ons, Commiffion, Call, and Opportunities from him 
 alone, and to him they muft give an Account of 
 their Miniflrations. It is ea/ier to condemn one a- 
 nother, than to approve our felves faithful and dili- 
 gent in the difcharge of our great Truft. 
 
 The Ordainers givt not the Power, they only Mi- 
 tt iflerially deliver the Pofleflion to fuch Perfons as are 
 duly qualified and call'd to the Office. They have 
 no Power to admit fuch as Chrift rejeds, or to re- 
 ject whom he admits. Separate me Paul and Barnabas ^ 
 faith the Holy Ghofl, to the Work to which I have 
 call'd them, (a) God Calls and Man Separates. There 
 fore the firft Queftion which the Bifhop asks the 
 Candidates for the Priefthood is. Do you think in your 
 Hearts that you be truly call'd according to the Will of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrifi — to the Order of Priefihood ? * 
 
 Prop. 11. Jefus Chrffi ordain d and appointed Apofiles, 
 to ivhcm he committed the fupreme Miniflry for the gather^ 
 ing, fettling, and governing of the New Tejiament Churches, 
 We have their Commiflion in John 20. 21. As the 
 Father hath fent me, even fo fend 1 you. And in Mat- 
 thew 28. 18, 19. All Authority is given to me in Heaven 
 and in Earth ; Go ye therefore and teach all Nationsy 
 haptijLing them, &c. Under teaching and baptizing. 
 
 (a) A^s 13.2. i^ See the Form of ordnmng Vr lefts. 
 
 which 
 
19^ The Hiftory of Ordmation. 
 
 which are two chief Parts of the Miniflry, is com- 
 prehended the ordaining Power. 
 
 Prop. III. 'fhe Apoftles ordain d Presbyters or Elders in 
 all the Churches which they planted, (b) Thefe zvere^alfo 
 Effiops. That the Scripture Bifhop and Presbyter are 
 one and the fame is evident, and will riot be denied 
 by the more judicious Defenders of Epifcopacy. The 
 fame Perfons are call'd (c) Presbyters and Bifhops, 
 and injoyn'd to kcd, or rule the Flock. So in Tit^ 
 I. thofe who are call'd Elders or Presbyters (T^fcr^t/rjVK?; 
 in Verfe the 5th are call'd Bifhops, Verfe 7th they 
 have the fame QualiHcations, Tttus i- 5,6, 7. i 7/w. 
 ^. and the fame Work aflign*d them, to overfee and 
 rule the Flock, i Pet. 5. 1,2. 
 
 Nor do we read of any diftin^t Ordination of Pref- 
 bytcrs and Bifhops in the New Teftament. One 
 Ordination can imprefs but one Charader. We read 
 of the Ordination of Deacons (d) as diftind from 
 that of Presbyters^ which is an evidence that they are 
 two diftind Orders -, on the contrary, one and the 
 fame Ordaining Aciion can conftitute but one and 
 the fame Office (e) The Holy Ghoft conftituted the 
 Elders of the Church of Ephefm, Bifhops of the Flock, 
 to whom the Government of it was committed. 
 
 Prop. IV- I'he Presbyters or B'Jhops ordain d by the 
 Apoflles in mofi if not all Churches, govern d the Church 
 in common ; this is evident from Scripture and An- 
 tiquity. 
 
 I. From Scripture, We have a clear and convincing 
 Proof of this in the Apoflles Charge to the Presbyters of 
 the Church of Ephefus ; the Government of which 
 Church is acknowledg'd to be a Platform to all other 
 Chriftian Churches. St. Paul having fent to Ephefus 
 from Militmy and call'd the Presbyters or Elders of 
 
 (b^ ASIs 14. 23. They Ordain d 'em Elders in every Church and 
 pray'd with fnfimg. (c; TJ^xr/^viifii^i ^ «V*fl-x«T««. (<V ^5> 6. (c) 
 
 • the 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. 19^ 
 
 the Church, he thus addrelTes 'em, Take heed unto your 
 f elves and to all the Flock, over the which the Holy Ghoji 
 hath made you B/fiops (() to feed the Church of God, which 
 he hath purchafed with his own Blood. Let it be here 
 obferv'd, 
 
 (i.) 'This was the proper time for the Apojlle to fettle 
 the Government of this Churchy becaufe he expeded toi 
 fee tlieir Faces no more, for fo hefpeaks Verfe 25. / 
 know that ye ally a7iiong whom 1 have gone Preaching the 
 Kingdom of God, Jhall fee my Face no more, or as it s 
 rendred in the I^orm of ordering of Priefts, / a?/t fure 
 that henceforth yefiallfee my Face no more. (g). 
 
 Hereupon the Elders took a folemn and final Leave 
 of him with many Tears, forrowing mofi of all for the 
 M-^ords which he fpake, that they Jhould fee his Face no 
 more- Verfe 38. 
 
 I difpute not now whether he vifited this Church 
 again or not, 'tis certain he thought he fliould nevet* 
 fee their Faces again, and therefore we may now exped 
 his la/i Thoughts concerning the Government of this 
 Church. 
 
 (2.) He appoints no ftngle Perfon to fucceei him in the 
 Government of this Church. We are told by fome^ 
 « That the Presbyters did govern the Churches in 
 ^ common under the Apoftles while they were able 
 * to take care of em, but that fometime before their 
 ' Death they appointed fingle Perfons to fuGceed 'etti 
 ^ in the Government of the Presbyters. 
 
 To which I anfwer, that the contraty h evident 
 in this place. The Apoftle preaches his Farewel Ser- 
 monXo the Presbyters of the Church o( Ephefusy where-* 
 in he tells rhcm their Duties towards their Flock, but 
 not one Word of a fuperior Bifiop, whom they fhould 
 reverently Obey y but on the contrary he comfnits the 
 
 
 
 li TO T 
 
 Lond. 
 
 edit. 
 
 for 
 
 Bi. Pawiet. 
 
 
 
 
 fg) Edit 
 Marg.f, 
 
 Lond. 
 
 1 4a. 
 
 ^J7i 10. 17. z?. 
 1 68 4. fid. Jut, 
 
 Go* 
 
194 ^^^ Hiflory of Ordination. 
 
 Government of the Church wholly to the Presbyters, 
 as the undoubted Bijhops of it, whom the Holy Ghoft, 
 and not Man, had made, or appointed (h) Bijhops over 
 the Flocky to feed or rule (i) the Church of God. 
 
 He Jbund not to declare to \m all the Counfel of Gody 
 (k) and if their neceflary Subjedion to a fingle Per- 
 fon, as their Governour, had been any Part of it, he 
 had not fuppreft it at this Time, when he was taking 
 his final leave of *em. 
 
 (3.) He commits the Government of this Church to the 
 Tresbyters in coinmon. He fpeaks to all equally. Take 
 heed unto your felves and to all the Flocky over the which 
 the Holy Ghofl hath made you Bifiops, They are all Bi- 
 fiofs of the FJock, and are all injoyn d to feed, or * 
 rule the Church of God. 
 
 (4.) This Government of the Church by Presbyters in 
 common is an Appointment of the Holy GhoB. So the A- 
 poftle tells the Presbyters of Ephefm, the Holy Ghofl 
 hath made you Bijhops. It muft therefore be a Divine 
 Eftablifhment, becaufe it hath the Spirit of God for 
 its Author ; it s not a prudential Confiitution, as that 
 of Bifhops in after Ages, but an Ordinance of God> 
 which can't be changed by any humane Authority. 
 Great Allowance muft be made to Rules of Prudence 
 in fuch Things as further the Exercife of that Power, 
 which the Holy Ghoft hath committed to the Pref- 
 byters, but humane Wifdom can eftablifh nothing that 
 is deftruElive of it. The primitive Churches gave a 
 Degree of Eminency to one Presbyter above others, 
 for Order and Peace fake, but not fuch as was de- 
 firuBive of that Power which the Holy Ghoft gave 
 unto the Paftprs of Churches. This appears in the 
 Church of Alexandriay in which the Presbyters made 
 their own Bifhop, as we fhall fhew anon, but they 
 
 .Ch)-«3^iro iTriTKoxH^, (i) To Rule the Church of God* So the Torm 
 sf Ord. Priejls, Old, Edit, (kj A^s to. 17. * TrmfuctJiM, to Rule, 
 ^v.^i. 17, fy; 2. 9. 70. 
 
 di- 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. 19-5 
 
 diveftcd not themfelves of their original Power, not 
 did they advance their Bifiiop into a higher Order, 
 but they governed the Church in common with him. 
 
 (5.) 7 he Holy G/jcfl appointed the Government of the 
 Church by Presbyters for aRemedy againf} Schifm. This ap- 
 pears from the Reafon which the Apoflle gives why 
 the Elders of Ephefm {hou*d ovtrfee and rule the Flock ; 
 for, faith he, / know this, that after my departing 
 Jhall grievous Wolves enter in among you, not fparing the 
 Flock ; alfo of your own felves {hall Men arife fpeaking 
 perverfe Things^ to draw away Difciples after \m. (1) 
 Jerom faith, that Bijhops were fet up ci6 a Remedy againff 
 Schifm. (m) 'Tis certain that the Apoftle makes no 
 mention of this Remedy in the firfl Epifile to the Co- 
 rinthians, in which he treats of Schifm^ and provides 
 Remedies againft it; nor in tht Epi file to the Ephefians, 
 wherein he treats of the Unity of the Chriftian 
 Chuxch, and of the feveral Orders of Minifters, 
 which Chrift hath appointed for the Prefervation of 
 Unity, (n) 
 
 He cautions the Romans againft Schifms^ but no 
 where mentions the remedy of Superior Bifhops. (o) 
 But in his JaftDifcourfe to the Elders oi Epheffn, he bids 
 the Presbyters feed theFlockyZs the Bijhops of it, to obvi- 
 ate thofe Schifms which he forefaw would arife in 
 that Church. The Government of the Church by- 
 Presbyters is the Remedy which the unerring Wifdom 
 of the Holy Ghofl has prefcrib'd againft Schifm. 
 
 It muft needs be the aptef} and mofl efeBual, be- 
 caufe it is appointed by the Holy Ghoft, whofe Pro- 
 vifions are not meerly prudentiah like thofe of Mens de- 
 vifing, but are the infallible Didates of infinite WiJ- 
 dom. Men are fliort fighted, and therefore on trial 
 of the inaptitude of Means to their Ends, change 
 their Thoughts concerning 'em, and take new Mea* 
 
 <S) Aa, 10. 18, 29, 30* {m) li'jer. ai Evair. (n) I Cor. 3. ii. 
 18. Efh, 4. II, II. 13. (o; Row. 16, 17. 
 
 O 2 fure; 
 
196 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 furesl"''It is not fo with the ^///wi/^ God, tv-ho fees the 
 End in the Beginning, and with whom is no variable- 
 nefs nor J/jadow of turning* 
 
 Two things are objeded to this Divine Eflabltfi- 
 fftent of Presbytery. 
 
 Obj. I. It's not inconfiflem, to fay that 7/wo% was 
 appointed their Ruler, or Bi/hop, and at the fame 
 time, that the Presbyters were made Overfeers of the 
 Flock under 'timothy, Cp) 
 
 Anfvc- Timothy w3,s not Bifliop of this Flock for fe- 
 veral Years after this time, if the firft Eptftk to him 
 was written after PauVs firft Imprifonment at Romey 
 which Mr. Gips labours hard to make out ,• for, the 
 great Argument for his being Bifhop of Ephefusy is 
 grounded on thofe Words in the i oi Tr/nothy i. 3. 
 / befought thee to abide fli II at Ephefus 'ivhen I 'u:ent into 
 Macedonia. Now he endeavours to prove that this 
 'Journey to Macedonia, when "Timothy was made Bifhop 
 o( Ephefm, was none of thofe mention'd in the ABs 
 of the Apoftles, which concludes with Paul's two 
 Years Confinement at Rome, * and he had been at 
 leaft two Years detain'd in Judea, and in. his way to 
 Rotncy (q) after he had committed the Government of 
 the Church of Ephefus to the Elders of that Church. 
 
 TheRe6:or is very inconftflent with hinafelf, and one 
 wou'd think had ftrangely forgot himfelf. He has 
 written two Books, in which he endeavours- to over- 
 throw the old Chronology, and to prove that.St. Paul's 
 firfl Epiflie to Timothy, which mentions his being left 
 at Eph^fifi a fupreme Governour, was written after 
 his firft Bonds at Ro7ne ; and now at a dead Lift is 
 glad to have it taken for granted that he was Bifhop 
 of Ephefus^ vj\\z\\ the Apoftle (m jBs.io-) commit- 
 ted the Government or that Church to the Fresb)- 
 
 (p; Mr.Gip'i Defence ef kis T^nu p, 51. * ^^s i3. 30. (q) ^^s 
 *Kl IX .r.o5*. ... 
 
The Htjiory of ^ Ordination, \^n 
 
 ters, which was at lead four Years before he was fee 
 at Liberty. 
 
 That he was no Bifliop of Ephefus when Vaul was 
 tit Milet:iSy,(i;y is evident, becaufe the Apoftle com- 
 rhits t\\Q,,Epifcopal Go-jernment of that Church to the 
 Vresbyters 'of ^lUyvhom the Hol^ Ghoft had made Bffiop> 
 to rule the ' Fto'cji^] 2LY\d he jnakes' no mention of any fu- 
 perior Bifhop he had fet over cm, which doubtlefs 
 he would have done, had he appointed ;uiy fingle 
 Perfon to fucceed him in the GovernmeiU of this 
 Church and its Prqsbytcrs. This was the proper 
 Time to declare his ^S'm^o/, when he could overfee 
 'cm no more, nor expcded'To .much as to fee their 
 Faces any more. T'iimthfwis n6w prefent, '5r not far 
 from him, (Q and can it be ..imagin'd, that, he /hould 
 overlook their fuprcme Biffiop at fuch a Time as this, 
 and commit the. Government to the Presbyters, with- 
 out minding *em of the Obedience they oind their Diocc- 
 fan. He tells *em h^ Jhinned net t& dec /are to ^e?n tie whole 
 Counfelof'CjpdjSiyid then immediately fubjo>ns, that 
 the Holy GJjofI"]:\3.d made Vm Biftiops of the Flock, (t} 
 Therefore if the "Subjection of Presbyters had been 
 any Part of the Divine Counfely hthdid not omittedj 
 to declare it in fo necefiary a Jundlure as this was. ,. 
 '.'To put" this Matter beyond all difpute, I will tran- 
 icribe Mr. G//j's own Words, who gives this account 
 of the Church o^Epbcfus, and the Government of it. 
 The Apoftky faith, he, committed tBe Government of this 
 Church in his ah feme unto th'efe Presbyters, or BiJJjops ; (u) 
 and a little after, the Apvfile being fet at liberty {2.1 Rome) 
 and returning back from Italy ^0 the ^zA^and being now old, 
 (Philemon Verfe p.} and finding tbatDivfions every where 
 increased and frevaiTci, cpnjljtuted Timothy Bijhop cf 
 Ephefus> CIS (^ouhtlcfs he'djd 'the fame in all Othei' Tin- 
 
 CO Acii to. 17, a8. (O ABs 20. 4-, 5' (0 ^^i io. 2.7. 2-3. (u) 
 Tm. nov. p, 47. * I Tiw. 1.3. (w) Ibid. />. 48. 
 
 O 15 Here 
 
I^S TJx Htjlory of Ordinatmu 
 
 Here is a fair Confeflion that Timothy tvas not Bi- 
 ftop o^ Ephefus when the Apoftle took his laft Leave 
 of the Presbyters of Ephefm at Miletus, never to fee 
 their Faces more. Therefore the Government of that 
 Church was committed to the Presbyters without a 
 fuperior Bifhop. Vaul could not overfee *em, nor e- 
 ver de(ign*d to vifit 'em any more, nor was Timothy 
 yet made the Bifhop, as Mr. G/ps affirms and pre- 
 tends to prove. It follows then, that the Apoftle by 
 the Diretlion and Command of the Holy Ghofl, fettl'd 
 the Government of this Church in the Presbyters 
 without a Diocefan Prelate. And to ufe Mr. Gips's 
 own Words, Doubt lefs he did the fame in all other 
 Places, 
 
 Ohj. 2. Though it be granted that the Apoftle left 
 the Government at this time to the Presbyters of £- 
 phefus^ he afterwards altered it by fettling Timothy Bi- 
 ft:op there. For the firji Epiftle ^o Ji/«o%, which afferts 
 his Epifcopal Power, was written long after the Con- 
 grefs at Miletus^ even after PauVs Imprifonment at 
 Rome, Being fet at Liberty, he went to Judea, and 
 thence ihio' Syria to Jjta, Being at Iroa^y 2 Tim,j^, 13. 
 about to fail into Macedonia^ he befought Timothy to 
 ahfde at Ephefus. Shortly after, when in Macedonia^ 
 haply, or Greece, or fomewhere thereabouts, he wrote 
 this firfl Epiftle to "fimothy, giving him the neceflary 
 Orders, how he was to behave himfelf in the Charge 
 lately committed to him- Thus Mr. Gips out of the 
 Learned Dr- Pearfon. (x). 
 
 To all this I anfwer, 
 
 J . This Objedion grants what I plead for, that 
 the Apoftle committed the Government of the Church 
 of Ephefus to the Presbyters of that Church, without 
 a Superior Lifiop. The Apoftle ceas*d to govern it 
 having taken his laft Farewel ; Timothy was not yet 
 
 («; Def. of his TfTft, fref, f. 3. 
 
 made 
 
The Hijlory oj Ordination. 199 
 
 made their Bifhop, therefore the Ptesbyters of Ephe* 
 fin whom the Holy Ghoft made Bifhops of this 
 Church were the fole and fupreme Rulers. Dr. Pear- 
 fons Chronology, which Mr. Gips fo zealoufly pleads 
 for, eftabiifhes my Hypothefis. 
 
 2. Suppofe the/r/7 Epifl'tQ 7/w. was written long 
 after the Congrefs at Miletus^ as the Dr. and Mr. 
 Gips would have it, this proves not that the Apoftks 
 alter d the Government of that Church. Becaufe the 
 Holy GhofI made the Elders of that Chunh Bijhops over ft 
 to feed and rule tty without a fuperior Bifhop. This 
 Eftablifhment was never altered by the Apoflles. 
 For, 
 
 1. The Holy Ghofl is confifient with Himfelf He does 
 not fet up one fort of Government this Year, and a- 
 nother the next. Sudden Changes in humane Con- 
 ftitutions argue Imperfedion m the Eflablifhmcnt 
 and Defed of Wifdom in the Legiflators, none of 
 which can be imputed to the Holy Ghoft and His 
 Laws. 
 
 2. This Eftablifhment was the lafl which the A- 
 poftle intended in that Church,for he had no Thoughts 
 of feeing *em again. 
 
 3. There is not one Circumftance in the whole 
 Context that may feem to favour a temporary Conftituti^ 
 on. The ApoftJe is leaving this Church, expcding 
 never ta fee it more, and therefore takes care of its 
 future Government, and appoints the Presbyters to be 
 his Succejjors therein. If ever we may expcdt a per^ 
 petual EJiablijhmenty this is the time when the Apoftlc 
 was conligning the Government of it to others, 
 who fhould fucceed him in the overfight of it. 
 
 4. We may with good Reafon affirm, that 7«wp* 
 thys Power over the Presbyters there was occafional 
 and temporary, becaufe he was an Evangelifi whom aU 
 acknowledge to be Superior to Pajlors and Teachers. * 
 
 O 4 Ana 
 
aoo The Hiflory af OrdmatioL i 
 
 And; he was appointed to flay there to fettle 
 thin^xs in the Apo/iles Ahfince. Obferve the vail: diffe? 
 rence between the Apoftle's committing the Govern* 
 ment at M;7e^;^ to the Presbyters of Ep he/my and hi^ 
 appointing T'imothy to ftay fome time there. 
 
 (i.^-.When he charg'd the Presbyters with. ihe 
 Government of thatChurch> he took hisdaft Leave of 
 'em, being, afiurd he fhould fee their- Faces no more: 
 when he appointed '7^>«o.^A>' to abide- there, he de- 
 fif^ad in a little time to Vi^ii that Church, \for fo he 
 (peaks, Thefe .things writp I. imtQ thqe, haping.to come 
 unto thee fliortly. {^yi-ii; -ji/ja er.v ^n^iiiJ};. 
 
 It's more reafonable to exped a perpetual Settlement^ 
 when -the ApoiUe intended to fee the Church of; £- 
 phejrypi no more, than when he defig^d Jto viiit it in a 
 little time. The Patrons of Eptfcopacy do own, that 
 originally Bijhvps and Fresbyters were the fame, but 
 that -the Apoftles fettrd Superior Bifhops over the 
 Presbyters, > when they could overfee the Churches no 
 longer, (z) 
 
 Wf agree that the moft proper Seaibri of fettling 
 the Government was \yhen they couldoverfee the Church 
 no longer y which was the Cafe of the Church o( Ephefus 
 wh^n the Apollles committed the Government of it 
 to the Presbyters ; but when he left Ttmothy there he 
 had not quitted the overiight pfjt, for he intended 
 to return again. . :-,- i, ^ . /'■- ;t 
 
 This one Confideration^ is fu{Ecient to determine 
 what Governi»enf the Appillp kttkd'SLt Epheffn: he 
 Jeft "timothy th^^e vyhfjvJi? had not quitted the Go- 
 verament of that Chuxch ; he committed the oversight 
 of it toithfi Presbyters, when, be refigjn!d the Govern- 
 ment, as knowing he jimdd-Jee their Fa(;es no more. There- 
 fore the Presbyters qf Ep hef ha wcr^ theApoftle^s Suc-^ 
 <:<j//ow in the. Government of that Church, to whom 
 
 iy~Tim. 3. i4"V»i 1 4." 1 3'. ~73'HalJ*^ Bpifco^. 1 ^(trt, p, ai. 
 
 • ■ ■ • i ■ ••'^.^•i -- ^fhe 
 
The Hijloiy of Ordination. loi 
 
 the Holy Ghoft committed the Charg'C of it, and not 
 Timet hy^ who was left there to fupply the Apoftle^d 
 Abfence for a fhort Seafon. 7/ the Form ordain dfo^ 
 the Church's Admtritftration by the Apoftles be of umverfal 
 and perpetual ufe, as Bifhop Hail laith it is, (a) and 
 in Reafon it ought to be, the Government of the 
 Church by Presbyters in Parity, is of divine Right, 
 uniyerfally and perpetually obliging. <> 
 
 2.. Ohferve the d/jj-erent Form of Speech tifed, in commit^ 
 ting the Government to the Presbyters of Ephefus, and to 
 Timothy- 'The Holy Ghofi is faid to make or conftitute 
 the Presbyters Overfeers or Bi/hops of the Flock to feed 
 or govern the Church of God. (b) Here's a plain di- 
 vine Appointment. But when Timothy was left there 
 no fuch Words are ufed ; all that is faid of him is 
 this, that Paul befoiight him to abide flill at Ephefus, (c) 
 he doth not injoyn, but befeecb him. When the*A- 
 poftles befought the Evangelifts, their Fellow-helpers, 
 to go to fome/ particular Church, they did not oblige 
 'em by any Divine Commandy but in treated em as 
 Brethren, who were at liberty to comply or other- 
 otherwife, as they faw occalioii. Thus Paul befought 
 Apollos greatly to go to Corinth, (d) but he judg'd it 
 not convenient. If Timothy had been Bifhop o^ Ephe- 
 fus he needed no Entreaties to abidezmon^ his Flock, 
 which he was oblig'd to do by Virtue of his Office: 
 but the Apollle intreats him as a Pcrfon that was at 
 Liberty, and under no particular Engagements to 
 the Church oi Ephefniy any more than to the Churches 
 of Macedonia and Achaia, to whom the fame Apoftlc 
 fenf him^ to Eflablijh and Comfort 'em. (e) When he 
 was under an indifpenfiblc Obligation, he fent Com- 
 ^ ptands unto him, and not Intreaties. (f) 
 
 ' 'fa) Div. Right of Epifc, Tojlulat, ^, {h) ABs lO. 18. ^^irol^irl 
 Koxaq ^otiAttitH*. (C) I Ti/^. i. 3. 9raffj(^Af#»«r5 ^at9(rfJUH>a4. (d) 
 I Cor, 16^ 12. 5raW -rm^iKolXttn* tcvrof. (e) I Thejf 3, 2. Affs 19, 
 
 But 
 
aoi The Hiflory of Ordination. 
 
 But he lays no Command upon him to al^ide there, 
 and if he had, it will not prove him BrJIjop of Ephe- 
 fniy for he and Silas are faid to abide ftill at Berea, 
 though they made but fhort flay there, (g) and were 
 po Bifhops of it. 
 
 In like manner St. Veter exhorts the Presbyters 
 to ft^^d or govern the Flock, and (h) to perform the 
 office of Bijhops. The Presbyters of T%effalomca were the 
 Governors, (i) of the Church. We read alfo in the 
 Epifl. to Timothy^ of the Presbyters that Rule well, (k). 
 
 II. From Antiquity, Jerom affirms, that the ancient 
 Church was governed by the Common Council of the 
 'Presbyters, (1). 
 
 In this Senfe we arc to underftand Ignatius^ when 
 be faith, that the Prtshytevs prefided in the place of the 
 College of the Apoflles. (m) 
 
 Again, I'he Presbyters are as the Council of Godj 
 and the Bond of the Apoflles of Chrifl. (n) 
 
 The ConflitutioHS of the Apoflles, (o) which are con- 
 fefl'edly ancient, do ailign unto the Presbyters a 
 double Portion to that of the Deacons, in Honour of 
 the Apoflles of the Lord, whofe Place they hold, as the Bi- 
 jhops , Councillors, and the Crown of the Church, for they are 
 the Senate and CouncH of the Church. 
 
 Cyprian writes to Cornelius, Bifhop of Rome and to 
 the mofl flourijhing Clergy prefiding with him. (p) 
 s; Bifhops did nothing of Moment without their 
 Presbyters, no nor without their People, as Cyprian 
 fpeaks of himfelf ; I have determined fince my firfl en- 
 
 (g) ABs 17. 14, 1$, tbsi*«»d«'. (h) 1 Pet,f,j»t, irirxoTstfTtf. 
 (T) I Thef. «5. ir. cr^iyet^w. (k) i Tim, j-. 17. ol x»A/?« &&S7UTH' 
 (\) Communi Coneilio Prcsbytcrorum gubernatirr Ecclefia, Hicr. ad 
 Evagr. (m) «$ roTny (TvfiS^)t rui elmfoXett, Igoat. ad Magnes. 
 
 I^nat. ad Trallens. (o) mnsrloXw — £y >^, roi' tj^» ^vXecertsat — • 
 tia-l ^ a-vvii'^ef ^ ;S»Ai» 'f eit«Attf-/<*?. Conft. Apoft. %t. 28. yid. Ibid, 
 cap. i6. (p) FlorcnuiTimo Clero tecum prsiidcntif Cvprian. Epift. 
 
 trance 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. ao^ 
 
 tratu:e on my Epifcopal Charge ro do nothing by my 
 own private Judgment without your Counfel fmean- 
 ing his Presbyters) and without the Confent of my 
 People, (q) 
 
 By the African Canons, Bifhops were forbidden to 
 hear any Mans Catife -without the Prefence of his Clergy, and 
 the Decree of the Bifiop was void, unlefs it were confirm d 
 by the Prefence of the Clergy, (r). 
 
 Prop. V. As the Scripture Presbyters were made Cover ^ 
 norus by the Apofiles,fo were they entruftedwith the ordain^ 
 ing Power. The Commifllon given em includes this 
 Power, for it is the fame with that of the Apoflles, 
 excepting only the extraordinary Parts of their Mi- 
 tt iftry, which was proper to em and ceas'd with 
 em. 
 
 The Apoftles Commiilionis in Mat. 28. 18, ip, 20. 
 AH Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, go 
 ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptiz.ing them in the 
 Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghoft, teaching \m to obferve all things whatfoever I have 
 commanded you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even td the 
 end of the World. Amen. Obferve, 
 
 1, This Commiffion was given unto the Apoftles 
 and unto their Succeffors in the Gofpel Miniftry unto 
 the end of Time, for fo the Promife runs, / am with 
 you alway even unto the end of the World. The Com- 
 miffion and Promife are of the fame Extent. 
 
 The Apoftles were not to continue to the end of 
 the World in their own Perfons, but in their Suc^ 
 ceffors. ' "*^' 
 
 2. The principal Parts of the Minifterial Office 
 are here mentioned, Preaching and baptiz>ing. Preachr 
 ing the Gofpel of Salvation, is the main and chief 
 Part of a Minifter's Work. The Sacraments arc 
 
 fq) Sine confilio vcftro & fine confenfu plebis mc«. Cyprian. 
 Epift. 6. (r) Irrita crit Sententia Epifcopi, pifi Clericorum prefcoti^ 
 confirmctur. Carth. Cow. 4. 23. 
 
 Seal^ 
 
004- The Hi/lory of Ordination. 
 
 Seals to the Dodvin? of the Gorp^ej, ^nd 'tis a great 
 er \Vork to pub I ijh the DoElrine th^n to apply the Seals. 
 Therefore St, Paul faith, that Chrifi did not fend him 
 to haptiz,e but to preach (Q. Jejus Chrifi himfelf preach- 
 ed, but did not^ baptize (t).. Preaching only therefore 
 |s niention'd by St. ^V/.i/-^, Matthews Abridge^,,. as 
 in<;luding the whole Miniflerial VV^ork, Mark i6^ i jj 
 Go ye into all the Worlds and preach tfj^Gofp el to ..every 
 Gr£atw'e, So, Gal i . i^. (w) ^ . < . 
 ^^;,g.. .Under thefe principal Parts of the MiniPcefial 
 Qffic?, are includeid all other;. Mimfterial Powers, 
 (kch as adminiftring::the Lor,d's .Supper^, governing 
 the Flock, ordaitiing. other ivjinifters^ &c. Either 
 ti^y. are not contained in this , Commjffion, or they 
 are included in the Power of Preaching, which in Other 
 Places is put for the whole OiEcc^of the Miniftry. 
 'Tis; certain th^Qydaining Tower is included in this Com- 
 m'iffipn, for the Brptnife is made to the Apoftlesand 
 their Succeflpirs unto the Endofthe fVorld, Therefore 
 they ..are impower'd to conft^tutq SucceiTors in thcj^ 
 ordinary Parts of tlieir Miniftry,;Xo.. which Or^ihdtion 
 is fubfervient as the AfoJ^' of Entrance into it. .""^ 
 4. It'hence -follows, that all that, are admitted in- 
 to this facred ifunAion of difpenfing the Gofpej, 
 have the whole Miniflerial Power committed to 
 ^liem, even all that Power which the Apoftles were 
 to tranfmit to;^ ^h*W SucceiTors. The Office is but 
 DViei,.;and cannot be divided. They who are ini- 
 power'd to difpenfe the Gofpel, have Power ;ilib ta 
 apply the Seals ; and they who are authorized to ad- 
 i^inifter the Sacramental Seals^ are made Judges of 
 their pwn.Adsi and confequentlymuft judge of the 
 litnefs of thofe that receive the Sacraments, which 
 i^ an Av^ of Government; all Miniflers have thi: 
 Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 'given 'em, (x) by 
 
 xn(f) iiGor. I. I7t (t) John 4. i. (w) Rom^ 10. 15*. Vid. ,4^s 
 10. 42/ Efhef, 3. 8., (x; hdatt, 16, 19. J^hn 20. 3^3. 
 
 2!fij2 ' . which 
 
The Hiflory of Ordination, ^05 
 
 which is fignified all Ecclefiaftical Power, (y) not on- 
 ly the Key of DoBrme, which it is confefs'd Presby- 
 ters have committed to them, but the Key of Jurifdi- 
 Bion and Order ^ for Chrift gave them together with- 
 out Diftindion. 
 
 5. That the Power o^ Ordination^ as well as that o£ 
 Treaching and Baptiz.ing-, is committed to Presbyters 
 by this Commiflion, is evident, becaufe they exer- 
 cised this Power : they not only preach'd the Gofpel 
 and adminilbed Sacraments, but laid on Hands for 
 the Ordaining of Minifters- We have two exprefs Ex- 
 amples of Vresbyters Ordaining in the New T'eftarnent' 
 
 1. The fir fl is in Ads i^. i, 2, 3. I'here were in the 
 Church at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers ; as 
 Barnabasy and Snfieon, called Niger^ and Lucius of Cy- 
 rene^ and Manaen, (Herod's Fofter-Brother) and SauL 
 As they mini fired to the Lord, andfafied, the Holy GhoB 
 fa/d, Separate me Barnabas and Saul/or the Work where- 
 unto I have called them. And when they had fafled and 
 prayd, and laid their Hands on them, they fent them away. 
 
 Obferve here, i. The Nature of Ordination, it's 
 the folemn Separation of fit Perfons for the Work of 
 the Miniftry, by Fafiing, Prayer, and Iwpofition of Hands. 
 
 2. The Ordained are Barnabas and Saul, who had 
 an extraordinary Call before this Time, by Virtue 
 of which they were Prophets, if not Apoftles (z). 
 But now they are commanded to fubmit to the ordi- 
 nstry Method of Admiflion into the Miniftry, for 
 a Pattern of Ordaining MiniUc^s.. Xo. .the .Geuttle 
 Churches, (a). ; u:h ht*- ,it:viv.i^-V1 
 
 3. The Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers. It's 
 not mentioned who were the Prophets, and who the 
 Teachers, but there were both in this Church at An- 
 tioch. Prophets were extraordinary Officers, 'Teachers 
 
 (y) IfaUh 21. 11, Rev. 3. 7. Gamer. Myroth. p. 40, 41. (z) ^5. 
 g, if.md 22. 18. GaL \, I, it, 15, i<5, 1 7. i Cor. 15. 8, 9. (a) 
 Li^ht foot, F((?/. 1, /. 289. 
 
 V :•: were 
 
7o6 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 were ordinary Vreshyters, (b) Trenchers are diftinguifh- 
 cd from Apoflles, FrojphetSy and Evangeliflsy and there- 
 fore they are ordinary Minifters of the New Tefta- 
 ment. Thefe join the Prophets in Ordination. All 
 therefore that are Teachers by Office, have Power to 
 ordain. Trophets are ceafed, and can have no Suc- 
 ceiTors in the Church ; the whole Power of Ordina- 
 tion therefore devolves on the Teachers or Vreslyters, 
 
 4. The Teachers in Ordaining here, do nothing but 
 what they are commanded of God. T'he Holy Ghofl 
 faid; unto whom ? Unto the Prophets and 'Teachers^ as 
 they miniflred unto the Lord-, and they, that is the Pro- 
 phets and Teachers, laid their Hands on them. It fol- 
 lows, (ABs [3. 4.) They were fent forth by the Holy 
 GhoR. 
 
 Such therefore as are regularly ordain'd by Presby- 
 ters, are fent forth by the Holy GhoR, Here is a 
 Command and an Example of Teachers or Presbyters Or- 
 daining, and nothing more can be defir*d. A Cow- 
 mand without an Example, or an Example without a 
 Command had been fufficient, but here is both, that 
 the Mouth of Gainfayers may be effedually ftop'd. 
 Nothing can be more clear than this Scripture j but 
 no Duty is fo plain, nor Article of Faith fo exprefs, 
 but the Wit of Man may devife fomething to elude 
 it.. T'urrian the Jefuit being gravelled with this plain 
 Teftimony, attempts to avoid the Force of it, by 
 making the Prophets here to have been BiJJjops, vAio 
 were the Ordainers, and the Teachers to have been meet 
 Presbyters, and that thefe were Paul and Barnabas who 
 were now confecrated Bijhops. (c). We accept his 
 Conceflion, that the Teachers are meer Presbyters ; but 
 that Paul and Barnabas were fuch, we deny, and have 
 proved the contrary of Paul already. He was cer- 
 
 (b) Eph. 4. 1 1. I Cor, 12. 2S* »9. (c) Vid. Sadeel. de legit. Paflof. 
 Tocat. jf>. 600, 
 
 tainly 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. ion 
 
 tainly a Prophet, and probably an Jpoftle before, as 
 may be fairly deduced from the Scriptures above- 
 mentioned, and is acknowledged by the Learned Bi- 
 /hop Tearfon, (d) and others. Bdrnabas was his Se- 
 nior and equal. That the Prophety were extraordinary 
 Officers we grant, but they were no Brjhops, nor do 
 the Bifhops pretend to be Prophets any more than 
 the Presbyters do. 
 
 Others wou d elude this Inftance of Ordination 
 by Presbyters, by niaking Prophets and Teachers to be 
 ^ne and the fame in this Place, They were Teachers, 
 faith one, that is, ordinary Minifters, but call'd Pro- 
 phets, becatife they receivd a fpecial Command to ordain 
 Barnabas and Saul, (e) This is to confound what 
 the Holy Ghoft diftinguifhes. Luke faith there were 
 Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antiochy not 
 Prophets only, to whom the Revelation came, (f) but 
 Teachers alfo, who are commanded to ordain- The 
 Command given them to ordain, cannot make them 
 Prophets ; nor can it be prov*d that the Holy Ghofi in- 
 fpir'd all the Teachers, but he fpoke to one or more of 
 the Prophets, that they and the Teachers fhould ordain 
 Barnabas and SauL Had they been all Prophets, it 
 had been enough to fay, there were Prophets in Antioch, 
 or there were Prophets who were al[o Teachers. But Luke 
 mentions Prophets and Teachers, who are diftinguifhed 
 in other Places. * All Prophets were not Teachers in 
 the Church, nor all Teachers Prophets. Philip's feven 
 Daughters were Prophets, but no publick Teachers, 
 It*s ingenioufly confefs'd by this Gentleman, becaufe 
 it can't be deny'd, that the Ordainers here were ordina- 
 ry Minifters, and that they had a fpecial Co?nmand to 
 ordain, which is fufficient to my Purpofe. 
 
 (d) Annal. Paul. p. i. (e) Gips's Tentara.Nov. ^. lo. (Fj Dixit 
 Spiritus per Prophetas iftos. Grot, ia A<5^. i 5. * Ephef. 4. il. i Cor, 
 t2. 28» 2^. Lukf 2i. 66* A^j 11. y. 
 
 * 
 
 The 
 
ao8 The Hi/lory of Ordination. 
 
 '^ The Second Inflance of Presbyters Ordaining, is 
 in I Tim. 4. 14. NegleEl not the Gift that is in thee, 
 which was given thee by Prophecy, ivith the laying on of 
 the Hands of the Vvesbytery, lis to be noted here, 
 ^ I. That Timothy was ordain'd by the Presbytery, 
 4s a College of Presbyters, for fo n^««riSt^r<e<«» fignifies 
 in the New Teftamenc ; and in that Senfe Cornelim 
 ufes the Word Presbyterium, for the Senate of Presby- 
 ters, as diftinguifhed from Bifhops. (g) It is true, 
 V.atd alfo laid Hands on timothy, 2 Tim. i. 6. Stir up 
 the Gift of God, ^ which is in thee by the putting on of my 
 Hands. But he either joyn'd the Presbytery with him^ 
 which proves their Ordaining Power, or they laid 
 Hands on him fome Time after the firfl Impofition 
 .of Hands by PmiL .He laid Hands on him to con- 
 fer the extraordinary. Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, which 
 .were given by the Apoflles Hands, and which he is 
 .exhorted here to J^zV x/^ : As Thul himfelf received 
 Ae Holy Ghoflj by the laying on of the Hands of 
 Ananias » * This extraordinary" G ift impowered them 
 to preach the Gpfpel, as P^«/ and Timothy did, but 
 did not hinder their fubmitting to the ordinary Way 
 of entering into the Miniflry. Thus Fatd and Bar- 
 nabas were ordained* by Prophets and Teachers, or Pref 
 '^byters, 2Lr\d Timothy by xh^ laying on of the Hands of the 
 Presbytery^ or Presbyters, which is the fame thing. Here 
 is a perfefl Agreement between the Ordination of 
 Paul and Barnabas Apoflles, and of Timothy an E- 
 vangelift ; both the one and the other are ordain d 
 by Teachers or Presbyters. 
 
 2. As Presbyters ordain d Paul .2nd' Barnabas by 
 ^the Appointment of the Holy Ghoft, fo was Ti- 
 7notljy 01 dsiind by the Presbyters according to the 
 fame Divine Appointment. The Gift of an Evange- 
 Tift was given him by Prophecy, that is, by the Dire- 
 
 ■■ :xii- — 
 
 (g) Placuit concrahi Presbyteriumj adfueruiit ctiam Epifcopi quin- 
 quc. Cypr. ia Epift. 4.6. * A^s 9. ij, ao. 
 
 * <^ion 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. 209 
 
 (^ion and Command of the Holy Ghoft fpeaking by 
 feme Prof bet unto the Vreshyters^ to feparate Timothy 
 to the Work of the Miniflry, as he did by the Pro-* 
 phets to the "teachers at Antioch to feparate Paul and 
 harnahai. Thus T^^fo/M/^ explains this Place, By Pro- 
 phecy, that is, faith he, by the Command of the Holy 
 Ghof} (h). 
 
 It's evident from thcfe two Inflances, which arc 
 more than can be produced in the New Teftament 
 for Ordination by Bi/hops, that Presbyters did 
 ordain Apoflles and Euangehfts by the Appointment of 
 the Holy Ghoft, much more may they ordain Pref- 
 byters or ordinary Minifters. 
 
 Obj. It will be faid, they ordain'd under the Dire- 
 ction of Prophets and Apoflles. 
 
 It was fit they fhould do fo, while there were fuch 
 in the Church: but now Prophets and Apoflles sir q cea- 
 fedj and have left no Succejfors in the Apodolical and 
 Prophetical Fuhclions, as fuch. They had not admit- 
 ted ordinary Presbyters to joyn with them, if they 
 had not a Right to ordain, much lefs would they 
 have fuffer'd themfelves to be ordainM by them. The 
 Holy Ghofl, when he commanded the Presbyters to 
 ordain, enjoyn'd them nothing but what was proper 
 to their Office, as intruded with the Keys of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. He did not call them to any 
 foreign Work, but to the proper Work of Gofpel 
 MindlerS, to confign that TruR to others which had 
 been firft committed to them. The Holy GhofJ did 
 riot call Laymen, but Miniflcrs to ordain Minifters. 
 
 Others fay, the Apoftles referv'd the Ordaining 
 Power to themfelves, and committed it to timothy 
 and titus, and to other Bifbops as their SucccfforSo 
 
 It's plain from the Inftances I have given, that 
 they did not referve it to themfelves in exclufion of 
 
 (h) Thcophyl. in i Tun. 4. i|. Sp iritu Sanilo jubente. 
 
 P the 
 
a I o The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 the Presbyters. Paul and 'Timothy were both ordain'd 
 by Presbyters ; and can they be fuppofed to exclude 
 Presbyters, who were feparated to the Service of the 
 Gofpel, by the Hands of Presbyters ? Timothy was left 
 at Ephefm, and Titm at Crete, with Powers to ordain 
 Miniflers * ; Not in exdufion of the Presbyters, whom 
 the Holy Ghoft had authorized to ordain, as we 
 have proved, but in ConjimElion luith them, where there 
 were Presbyters. It does not appear there were any 
 at Crete, when Titm was left there. It feems there 
 were fome at Efhefm, but they were levened with 
 falfe DoEirine, \ and needed the Reflraint and Con- 
 dud of the Apoflle, or an EvangeliR in his Abfence, 
 who were both fuperior to Presbyters j. Nay, the 
 Apoftle might have deputed an ordinary Presbyter, 
 to corred: the diforderly Teachers at Ephefui, and to 
 regulate the Male-Adminiftration of Ordination and 
 other Gofpel Ordinances, but not to deprive the Or- 
 thodox Presbyters of the Powers which the Holy 
 Gholl had given them- The ordinary Mtnifters did 
 in a manner conftantly need the Condud of Apoflles 
 or Evangelifls and Prophets, until the Canon of the 
 New Teftament was finifhed, which makes the Man 
 cf God perfeH in the want of thofe infallible DircElors 
 of the Churches and their Paftors. What they deli- 
 vered, viva voce, by Word of Mouth, is now con- 
 tained in their infpir'd Writings. 
 
 Prop. IV. The Apoflles ordain d fever al Presbyters or 
 Btjhops in r>toR, if not all the Churches. The Twelve, 
 on whom St. Paul laid his Hands, feem to have been 
 ordain'd Presbyters of Ephefus, AEis ip. 6. There 
 were feveral there, as appears from AEls 20. 17. 
 There were Bifhops, or Presbyters in the Church of 
 Philippi, Phil I. i. So in Thejfalonica, i Theff. 5. j 2. 
 
 * 1 Tim, S* »*• ^^^^-^ i* 5« t I ^''»» '• >• ^ llphef. 4. 11. 
 % Timu 4. J-. 
 
 And 
 
The H/Jlory of Ordination. iii 
 
 And perhaps at the firfl Conver/ion of Cities, as Bi- 
 fhop Doivnham obfcrvcs, the vchcle Number of Convey is 
 did not much exceed the Nuviber of Freshyters placd amo;:g 
 them (i). 
 
 Na2..ianz.en faith. That in his Time the Church Go- 
 Tfernours were almoft more in Number than thofe thac 
 were fubjed: to them. (k). 
 
 Tlie Rcafon of multiplying Presbyters in the an- 
 (Jient Church, feems to have been the propagating of 
 the Gofpel in the Neighbouring Places. This is 
 mention 'd by Ckinens in his Epiftle to the Corinthians ^ 
 T'hey (i. e. the Apoftles) ordained the firil Fruits of 
 fuch as belie v'd, to be Bifliops and Deacons, to mini- 
 iler unto them that fhould afterwards believe (\). 
 
 Whether the Apoflles appointed (ingle Perfons to 
 be Payors in any of the Churches, may be juftly 
 doubted. For we read of fcvcral Bifhops or Presby- 
 ters of Philippic (m) but of no Superiority of one a- 
 bove the other. The fame feems to have been the 
 State of the Church of Corinth, At Ephcfus we find 
 Timothy a fingle Pcrfon, but it cannot be proved thac 
 he was dated Paftor or Bifliop of that Church, be- 
 ca ufe, 
 
 1. We find feveral Bifiiops there, y^Ms 20, 28. 
 
 2. Timoth W2LS an Evangel ift, 2 Tim. 4. 5. And an 
 Evangelift was fuperior to Paftors, Eph. 4. 11. 
 
 3. He is call'd away from Ephcfus, and lychichns \<i 
 fcnt thither in his Room. 2 Tim. 4. 12. 
 
 Nor does it appear that Titus was the Paflor of 
 any fingle Church in Crete, but was left there by the 
 Apoflle to ordain Elders in ev.'ry City, where there 
 was a fufHcient Number of Chriifians to form a 
 Church, Titus i. 5. This he did as an Evangelifh fi]- 
 
 (i) Def. 3. I. (k) y^-j «cn* (Tj^fc^jvri {TAfY^? x«t' v.^A^[h\'iY. c/sntrfU 
 i'^:^n Orat. i. p. 15. EJir. Bsfi). Hevv. g. (/; If. at C'^rintli. if?0 
 it»d, I. 1. 
 
 r J pcrioi 
 
a I a The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 perior to the ordinary Pallors, or Elders of the City 
 Churches, whofe Power was confin'd to one Church ; 
 but that of the Evangclids was more extend \^e to 
 any Church, City, or Place, whither the Apoflles fent 
 them. 
 
 Thus "fitus was appointed to ordain Presbyters in 
 the feveral Cities of Crete, and was fent afterwards to 
 Dalmatian (2 T?>». 4. ]o) intrufted with the fame 
 Powers, namely, to preach the Gofpel, to ordaiii 
 Minifters, and to fer in order what was wanting in 
 the new planted Churches. 
 
 That Evangelifts did ordain, is acknowledged by 
 the learned Affertors^ of Epifcopacy, and affirm'd by 
 Eufebius, who fays, Thty did preach ChnR to tboje who 
 had not yet heard the Word of Faith^ they delizered unto 
 them the Holy Scriptures.^ ordain d P a/lor s, to whom they 
 committed the Charge of the New Converts (n). The 
 fame Power is afcribed to Evangelifts by the Confii- 
 tutions that go under the Name of the Apoftles, 
 in thcfe Words, Annianus is ordain'd firfl Bifhop 
 of Alexandria by Marc the Evangelift, and Avi- 
 lius the Second by Luke, who w^as alfo an Evange- 
 
 lift. (o). 
 
 Some conceive that the Angels of the Seven Church- 
 es of ^^fui-i in Rco. 2d and 3d Chapters, were fingle 
 Perfons j but that may with good Reafon be doubt-^ 
 ed alfo, becaufe that in Ephefusy one of thofe 
 Churches, we find feveral Bifliops, as we obferved be- 
 fore : Beiides, Angel muft be taken colledively for all 
 the Minifters, except we imagine the Presbyters to 
 be unconcerned in thofe Epiftles, which are dired:ed 
 no Icfs to the Churches than to the Angels. 
 
 (n) Eufcb. ted. Hid. 5. 37« v^ifB/et^sr^B-ifutrn sV/gaj. (o) Coafl 
 Ap. 7- 46- 
 
 The 
 
TJoc Hijlory of Ordination. 7 I ^ 
 
 The learned Grotius affirms, that the Apoftles ap • 
 pointed feveral Bifhops in one City, in Imitation of 
 the Jtwsy who had in every Synagogue a chict Ruler, 
 of which there were more than one in feveral Cities. 
 {p). And this continu'd for fome Ages after, for E- 
 piphanius obferves, that at ^kx indna they had but 
 one Bi(ho^i whereas there were two in other Citits {q). 
 
 Dr. HatnmorJ, a, Man of excellent Learn in![^, fays 
 there were two Churches and Bifhops in many Ci- 
 ties, one of Jews and another of Gentilesy in the A- 
 pOilies Time and afterwards : So that according to 
 him, there were as many Bxfhops as there were 
 Churches. 
 
 Prop. Vil, In the Ages after the Apoftles one Presbyter, 
 cr Bijbop was fet over the reR. Jerom proves out of 
 the Epillles of St. Faul and St- Peter, and St. John^ 
 that Biffiops and Presbyters were the fame at firft, 
 but that afterwards ens was chofen and jet O'ver the ref}, 
 as a Remedy againfl Schifm (i). And in another Place 
 he fays. This was done, not at one Time, but by 
 little and little ; that the Roots of Diilention might 
 be plucked up, the whole Pafloral Care was devolved 
 upon one [s). 
 
 If fuperior Bifhops was a Remedy againfl Schifm, 
 it feems flrange the Apoftle fhould overlook it in the 
 Epiftles to the Corinthians and the Ephefians, in both 
 which he prefcribes excellent Remedies againil: the 
 growing Schifms of thofe Times ft). In thofe two 
 Epillles he mentions the feveral Orders of Gofpel Mi- 
 niflers, (w) but not a Word of Bifhops. Nor is there 
 any mention of any fuch Officer in Clemens his E- 
 pillles to the Corinthians^ tho* written on the fame 
 
 fp) Gror, dc Regim! I l. i. Cq) i y^ ^nr'AXt^oit^^f^x ^ve l-mrKO' 
 irviu^ir, t^i cu a.)i.Ui TnXHS. (r) Hicron. aj Evagr. {ij Com;:ut. IQ 
 Tic — pauia:mi vero aa unum omncm foilicitudinem clTc dcl-tam. 
 (t; I Cor. 1, 1,3. Chap. Ephef. ^. (u) i Cor. ii. iS. Iph, ^. ii. 
 
 P 5 Oc- 
 
7 1 4. The Hifiory of Ordination. 
 
 Occalion. Lamentable Experience has convinc'd the 
 World how ineffedual a Remedy the Office has pro- 
 ved, and how the pious and prudential Inflitiition 
 has been fo far from anfwering the Intention, that it 
 hath prov'd the Occaflon of dividing the Chriftian 
 World, and of fetting up the tyrannical Bifhop of 
 Rome^ the Head of tlie Antichriftian Apoftacy. 
 
 Hilary y the Roman Deacon, who flourifh'd under 
 Pope Damafus, acknowledges that the ancient Bijhop 
 was only the firB Presbyter ^ and gives this as the 
 Reafon, Why the Jpoftk to Timothy fubjoins the Order 
 of Deacons after that of Bifiups, hecaup, faith he, there 
 is one Ordination of a B/Jbop and Presbytery for they aie 
 loth PricftSy htit the Btlhop is the firft (w). The fame 
 Author confcfies, 'Thai the Ordinations of his Time did 
 vot in all Things agree -with the Writings of St. Paul, he- 
 caufsat fiyjt Presbyters ivere calfd BiihopSy &c. ("x). 
 
 This Teftimony of Hilary is the more confldcra- 
 b!e, becaufe it's confirm d in Subftancc by Pope Da- 
 wafusy who in his Book De Geftis Pontifxumy hath 
 thcfe Words, St. Peter ordain d two BiJhopSy Linus and 
 C'etus, voho m their own Perfons JJjould perform all facred 
 Offices to the Roman People (y). It's true, thefe Words 
 are not to be found i\\ the printed Editions of that 
 Book. 
 
 But they are in ail the Manufcript Copies, and fo 
 they are cited by Mariamis Scctniy as Ifaac Voffius af- 
 fures us, who adds. That the Succeffon of Bijhops at 
 Rome in a Jingle Verfon begun «;2^^r Evariflus, when before 
 his Time two or three fat together, (z). 
 
 (wj Hilar. Diac. in Tim. 3. Epifcopi & rreshvteri una o'diiiaiiQ 
 eft. fx) Non per omnia ccnveniunt Scripu Apolioh Ord initio quae 
 nunc in Ecclefia efr. Hilar. Commer.t. in Eph. 4. (}; Hie (Pctrus) 
 prJinavit duos Epikopos Linura & Clecum, qui prGelentiaiiteromnc 
 inij>a]erium Sacerdotale in urbe Roma populo fjpervcnienti exhibe- 
 rcnt, (z) Vid. If. VoflT. contra B:oucl Ep. z, in Cierici edit. Patr. 
 Apo|l. Vol. 1. p. 443. 
 
 This 
 
The Hijiory of Ordination. ^15 
 
 This fhews what vile Arts have been ufed to cor- 
 rupt the Ancients, that they might fpcak nothing in 
 difparagement of the Hierarchy (a). At Antiocb al- 
 (o Ignatius and E'vodiPti were both Biihops at the fame 
 Time. 
 
 As the Bifhops grew in Power and Greatnefs, they 
 were lefs able to bear Rivals, and therefore general- 
 ly affeded to have the Government of Cities in 
 lingle Perfons. At length the Council of Nice made 
 a Canon, That there Jhould not be two Bifhops in one 
 City (b). 
 
 And yet this Canon allows fuch Bifhops of the 
 Cathari a6 returned to the Catholick Church to retain 
 the Epifcopal Honour with the Confent of the Catholick 
 Bifliop ; or if this did not pleafe him, he fiould provide 
 Jor them the Flace of a Country Bifhop or Presbyter. 
 
 By which it appears, they did not think itfimply 
 unlawful that there fhould be two Bifhops in one 
 City, but they were willing to pleafe the City Bi- 
 fhops, who, as will appear anon, were grown very 
 tender of their Prerogatives in the beginning of the 
 Fourth Age. 
 
 Nor was this Canon fo liridly obferv'd, but in fe- 
 veral Cafes two Bifhops were afterwards allow'd to 
 be in one City. 
 
 Thus the Council of Ephefus, after the Eledion of 
 Theodorus, Ciiff^rs Euftachms to obtain the Honour of 
 Epifcopacy, as appears by the Epiflle to the Synod 
 of Vamphilia. 
 
 Alexander and Narciffus were both of them Bifhops 
 of Jerufakm at the fame Time. (c). In like manner 
 was Aiiftin chofen to be Coadjutor to lAilenm Bi- 
 fhop of HippOy at his own Defire, when he found bim- 
 
 (a) Conft. Clem, VII. 46. & Baron, ad An. 4/. (b) fax jW/i c# 
 T« Wa« ^uo imTMTni un*^ Cone. Nic. Can. 8. (c; Niccph. Eccicf. 
 Hift. ;■. 26. 
 
 P 4 fclf 
 
^l6 The Biflory of Ordination. 
 
 felf difabled with Age ; Auftin for fome time fcru- 
 pled it, as being not agreeable to the Cuftom of that 
 Age, but being told that this was not unufual, but 
 agreeable to feveral Examples of the African and Eu- 
 Yopean Churches, he confented, and was created not 
 only Succeffor to Valerim^ but his Colkgue in the E- 
 pifcopal Care (d). 
 
 Gregory Naz.ia'azen affifled his Father in the Go- 
 vernment of the Church of Naz,ianz,umj, with an In- 
 tention not to fncceed him (e). 
 
 Auftin the Mcnk ordain'd Lawrence for his Sue- 
 ceflor in his Life-time (f). 
 
 Melet:ti BiGiop of Aritioch offer'd unto Vaulinus, who 
 had feparated Aflemblies, that for the healing of 
 Breaches, he fhould ftare with him in the Epifcopal 
 Power, on Condition the Survivor fhould fucceed. 
 
 A Council of Capua ordered, that Flavians and 
 Evagrius their Congregations fhould live together 
 in loving Communicn, as Teter and Vaiil are faid to 
 have done at Rome 
 
 Bifi Bifhop of the Eaf} Angles being yet alive, but 
 inlirm, Aecci and Badwine were both of them ele(5tc4 
 and confecrated in his Place. (^). 
 
 The Novatians had S^finius at Conftantincfle- for 
 their Bifhop in ChryfiftGms Tim-^ (hj. 
 
 So the Catholicks and Donatifts had their Billiops 
 in the fame Cities, as Auftin affirms (\), He alfo 
 mentions, how the Orthodox Bifhops in the famous 
 Conference with the Donatffts at Carthage, promifed 
 to admit their Bifliops, on their Repentance, for 
 their Cqilegues to govern the Church j'oyntly, and 
 
 (d) Creatus efl Aiiguillnus Nontantum Valerii SucceiTor, fed 
 
 flarim Epilcopjs. Ec Epilcopatus curam fui'ccpit. PofTjcl. in vit. 
 
 l^ug. cap. ^. (e) Vid. Vit. ejus operibus. Prefix, (f) Bed. Eccl. 
 Hift. II. 4. (g) Bed. £ccl. Hift. 4. 5-. (h) Socrac. Eccl. Hift. 6. 
 >o. II. (1) Contra Crcfccn. 3- 4^,48. 
 
 the 
 
Thf Jitflory of Ordination. a i y 
 
 tj^e Survivor to fucceed ; but if the People could not 
 bear two Bifhops, both fhoud recede, and fingle 
 Bifhops fhoiild be chofen Ck). 
 
 By all which it appears, that as the Apoftles ap- 
 pointed feveral Bifhops, in particular Churches i fo 
 was it not judged unlawful to have two Bifhops in 
 a City, after the Government of the Churches was 
 committed to fingle Perfons. 
 
 I 
 
 HAP. 
 
 11. 
 
 The Nawc Bifhop at Ufi appropriated to the chief 
 Presbyter, The Ignatian Epijlles provd Jpurious 
 and counterfeit by ten Jrgumefits. The Sybil- 
 lene Oracles^ a Pious Fraud invented by fome 
 Chriftian^ in order to recommend Qhrtftianity to 
 the Heathens, 
 
 Prop. Vlll. np//£ NumeBtJJjop in the Ages after the 
 ^0 Apoflles, was by degrees appropriated to 
 the Chief Presl^er, who had the more immediate and 
 principal O'verjight of the Church. He was not call'd 
 Bifhop in exclulion of the Fresbyters, as ii they were no 
 Bifhops, for they alfo had the Overfight of the Flock ; 
 but he was ffyled Bifhop by way of Eminency.' 
 
 It's paft difpute, the Name Bifhop and Presbyter are 
 ufed promifcuoufly in the Apoflolical Writings in the 
 New Teftament. It is not to be thought that the Names 
 were diftinguiflied until a fingle Perfon was let over 
 the Presbyters, and after that was done, the Names 
 remained common for fome Time, as the Offices ch 
 I'iginally were. Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 102. ge- 
 
 (k) Aug. Oper. brcv, collar, primi Diei. Cap, j-. & lib. dc Geflis 
 cum Emerit. 
 
 neralJ)r 
 
ai8 The Hifloyy of Ordinatimt. 
 
 ncrally ufes Bi/hop and Presbyter without diftinction ; 
 He calls all Minifters Presbyters, for, faith he, the 
 Tresbyters keep that firm in the Church, which makes Men 
 better y and the Deacons that which is ferviceable (\). 
 
 Tresbyters and Deacons in Clement are the fame with 
 paufs Bifljops and Deacons, Vhtl. i. i. And in another 
 Place, (m) on whom jhall the Presbyters lay Hanas ? 
 whom jhall he blefs ? 
 
 In the like manner Clemens Romanus, who Vivd a- 
 bout the Year 91- mentions h\xt two Orders of Mini- 
 flers appointed by Jcfiis Chrift, namely Bifhops and 
 Deacons. The Apollles, faith he, ordained the firfi 
 Fruits of fuch as believed to he Bijhops and Deacons. And 
 a little after, It will be nojmall Sin, if we caji off thofe 
 who have unblame-y and holily undergone the Duties of 
 their Epifcopacy. (n) BlcJJed are thofe Presbyters, who ha^ 
 vingfinijhed their journey, have gain d a fruitful and per- 
 feEl Diffolution, 
 
 Clemens here afcribes an Epifcopacy to the Presby- 
 ters of Corinth, and makes Bifhops and Presbyters 
 the fame. 
 
 ToJycarp, who liv'd in the firfl: Century, A. D. 94. 
 Bifliop of Smyna fpeaks in the fame%anguage to the 
 Vhilippians, exhorting them to be fubj^ to the Pref- 
 byters and Deacons, as unto God and Chrill: ; (o) 
 whom Paul in his Epiflle to the Philippians had fiy- 
 led Bifiops and Deacons, Polycarp calls Presbyters and 
 DcaconS' 
 
 Juftin Martyr,who liv'd A,D. t 4o.in his account of the 
 Chriftian Churches, mentions only the Ruler, Deacons, 
 and Reader, who feems to have been diiHnd from 
 
 ^, oi ^ixKovoi. Srrom. 7. p. 700. tdit. Colon. Sylburg, 168^. (m) 
 Clem. Alex. P'sdog. 3. 11. (n) Aua^ -f «?n(r>cocr?? . Mccy.ccpioi rr^ir- 
 
 xj jc€^9^» i'oiycarp. £p. ad Phil. 
 
 t both. 
 
The HiJlo}y of Ordimition. 019 
 
 both (p^ By the ^re^jcrV^ or Ruler, he means the Pa- 
 ftor of the Congregation, who pray'd, preach'd, bap- 
 tiz'd and adminiftred the Eucharift. 
 
 Irena:m alfo, who liv'd about 1 79. makes the Ef- 
 fhops and Presbyters to be one and the fame, for 
 faith he, T'he Church nctirjjheth fuch Presbyters, of -whom 
 the Prophn /peaks, I will give thee Princes Cor Rulers) 
 in Peace and Bijhops in Righteoufnefs (qj. This Tefti- 
 mony (out of Ifa. do. 17.) is a little differently rcn- 
 dred by Clemens RomayiM, who reads it thus, / will 
 conftitute their Bifhops in Righteoufncfsy and their Dea- 
 cons in Faithjulnefs . Irenaus agrees with the modern 
 Copies of the 70 Interpreters. It may be Clemens 
 followed fome other Copy, or cited the Words oat 
 of his Memory, as the Fathers often do, being more 
 careful to give the Senfe, than the exprefs Words. 
 But both agree in the Senfe of the Q^iotation, that it 
 is a Prediction of Gofpel Minifters, which are Bi- 
 fhops, or Presbyters and Deacons. 
 
 Indeed Ignatius all along fpeaks o( Bifiops, Treshyters 
 and Deacons, and preiTes Obedience to them fo often, 
 and in fuch fulfom Repetitions, as if it were the whole 
 Duty of Chriftians. 
 
 It cannot be denied but the next Ages after the A- 
 poftles abounded in fpurious Pieces, which the Here- 
 ticks "and fome well meaning Chriftians obtruded in- 
 to the World under the Name of feme Apoftle, ou 
 Apoflolical Man. There was fcarce a Man of any 
 Note in the Apoftolical Age, but was made the Fa- 
 ther of fome fuppofititious Writing or other. The An- 
 cients mention a great number of falfe Gofpels, a- 
 fcribed unto the Apoitles, fuch is the Gofpel of Pe- 
 ter, the Gofpel of James, Alp ha us, of 'Thomas, B art ho- 
 lomew, Thaddeus, Philip, &c. Of the fame Nature is 
 
 (p) '^vy^XQ/.'PiffUAl^ tS «r^J5wr®- .---•- cisixovei ^i$'ju71i ixoi'tOf -• — 
 
 ra^t;a»,'4^» ri oivu.yneia-KOVT<^ Apil. !■ p. 76 & 77. Editt Sjlburg. 
 
 (4) Iren, adv, Hjtref. 4. 44. Col. ^^r;/. 1591. 
 
 th« 
 
a^o The Hifloy oj Ordination. 
 
 the Gofpel of ^ames the Jufl, the Gofpel according 
 to the Hehrt-vcsy according to the JEgyptmns, and of the 
 Apoflles. See Eujebius^ Jerom^ GelaJIus^ dec. 
 
 The ancient Writers do alfo mention the falfe ABs 
 of the Apoflles^ as the Afls of Paul and Tecla, of Peter^ 
 Andrew, VhiJipt Johtt, Thomas, Bartholomew, 'fhaddeusy 
 6cc. Thofe are mentioned by Cletnens Alexandrinusy 
 Eufehms, and others, and feveral of them have been 
 lately publifhed by Grabius, le Clerc, ^c. on what 
 defign they know beft. There have been Epiftles 
 counterfeited in the Name of the Apoflles and Apo- 
 ftolical Men, fuch as the Ef/flle of Paul to the Lao- 
 diceans, and another to Seneca, Barnabas^ Epiftle, &c. 
 To which may be added, The fpurious Liturgies of 
 Atitthew, of Mark, of Peter, of James, of Barnabas, 
 and that under the Name of the Twelve Apo/tles, and 
 another under the Name of Clemens Romanus in the 
 Books of Conflitution, which laft is approv'd by Baro- 
 niiis and Bellarmine- Wlien our New Editors think 
 fit to pubhfh an intire Collection of the fal(e Epiflles, 
 GcfpelSy AEisy and Liturgies, fathered on the Apoftles, 
 the Pyrrhonian Wits of the Age will be furnilli'd with 
 a new Bible to confront the Sacred Canon. 
 
 But that which is to our purpofe '\'s>, that the Inno- 
 vations in the Government of the Church were fup- 
 ported by the fame Arts. When feveral Thingswere 
 introduced into the Church that had no Foundation 
 in the New Teftament, they were recommended as 
 Apoftolical Traditions, as VVorfhiping towards the 
 Eaft, ufing the Sign of the Crofs, Handing in all their 
 publick Devotions between Eafler aqd JVhitfontide, 
 the Obfervation of the great Feftivals, and feveral 
 other Cuftomsi and Ufages. Artemon attempted to 
 eftabiifli his Herefy, that Jefus Chrift was but a meer 
 Man, by a pretended Tradition from the ApoRles, 
 which was convey'd down unto the Times of ViEiory 
 Bifhop of Rome, whofe Succellbr Zephyrinm, as he 
 faid, corrupted the Truth -, but an antient Writer 
 
 t has 
 
The Hiflory of Ordination. a 2 1 
 
 has confuted his Herefy both by Scripture and Tefti- 
 monies of Fathers before Vigors time fr). 
 
 The Fathers of the ancient Church were more in- 
 tent in preferving the Apoflolical Dodrine, than they 
 were in fecuring the Form of Government delivered 
 by the Apoftles, which was corrupted more and 
 more, until at laft, it was utterly loft and entirely 
 refolv'd into the Will and Pkafure of the Roman 
 Pontif. 
 
 Befides the Pretentions of ApcftoUcal T'raditionsy the 
 Alterations in the Ecclefiaftical Government were 
 generally receiv'd under the Notion of Apoftolical De- 
 crees, for which end feveral fpurious Books were 
 publifh'd concerning Church Government, and fathered 
 on the Apoilles and their immediate Followers and 
 Companions. 
 
 Of this Nature are the Canom of the Afoflles, as they 
 are call'd, which are 85 in Number according to the 
 Greeks, (f) and but 50 according to the {x.)Latines, tho' 
 Boronius makes them ^^. Thefe affert the Govern- 
 ment of the Church in Bifhops, Presbyters, and 
 Deacons. 
 
 Another large Volume was put upon the credulous 
 World, under the Name of Apoftolical Con/iitutions, con-^ 
 fifting o( Eight Books, in which the bold Author fpeaks 
 fometimes in the Name of one Apoftle, fometimes 
 in the Name of the whole College of Apoftles, in- 
 joyning the Obfervation of the feveral Rules of Di- 
 fcipline and Wor/hip. They were forged about the 
 latter end of the third Century, as fome think, or in 
 the fifth as Dalle conceives (u). Thefe Writings do 
 mention Bifhops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the feve- 
 ral inferior Orders of Clergy, which are retained in 
 the Popifh Church. 
 
 (r) Eufe6, EccL Hifl. 5. 27. (f) Vid, Cod. Cmncn. Eccl Orieut, cum 
 notis Bdfam, [i] Cod Canon. iccLDtcnyf Extgut. (uj De Pfeude^u 
 gra^his Afoftol, 
 
 A- 
 
2^1 The Hiftory of Ordiitation. 
 
 Another fpiirious Author of the fourth Age, is the 
 falfe Dionyfius the Ateopagite, who has publifli'd a Book 
 of the Cekftial Hieranhyy wherein he pretends to de- 
 fine and explain the fcveral Orders and Diftindions 
 of Angels ; and another Book of the Ecdefiaflical Hie- 
 rarchy, wherein the three Orders of Bifhops, Priefls 
 and Deacons are afferted, and Ordmatiorii the ConfeBi- 
 on of the Sacred Oyh ^nd Confecratton of Altars^ are ap- 
 propriated to the Bifliops (w). The counterfeit 
 Dionyfius^ that he might be thought the true Dio- 
 nyjiusy dedicates his Books to "timothy Bifhop or Pon- 
 tif of Ephefus. 
 
 There is juft reafon to fufped the Epiftles that go 
 under the Name of Ignatius to have been forged for 
 the fame End, namely, to promote the Epifcopal 
 Hierarchy. 'Tis acknowledg'd that feveral fpurious 
 Epiftles have been publifh'd under his Name, as thofe 
 Ad Moriam, ad tarfenfeSy ad Antiochenos^ ad Heron^ ike* 
 
 It will not be denied alfo, but that the feven re- 
 puted genuine Epiftles have been interpolated. Nor 
 had we any Editions of them but fuch as were ma- 
 nifeftly corrupted before thofe of FojJ^tis and Ujher, 
 which the Learned Bifhop Fearfon, and feveral others 
 would have to be genuine. The Magdeburg Hifto- 
 rians, PV/jattaker, Cook, Cafauhon, S.^hnafius, Elcndely 
 Daille, la Roque, who has defended Dai/fe again ft 
 Pearfon, and many others, condemn thcni all for fpu- 
 rious or corrupt. To whofe Opinion I incline for 
 thefe Reafons. 
 
 J. Becaufe he agrees not with the JViitings of the A* 
 poft/esy in which there is no diftindion made between 
 fiifliops and Presbyters, but in Igiiatius his Epiftles 
 they are conftantly diftinguifh'd. I cannot conceive 
 that Ignatius, who liv'd fo near the Apoftles, and 
 was their Difciple, as is afErmM by feveral, (x) fhould 
 
 (w) De Ecclef. Hiemch, Ca^. 8. (,x) Thesdorit. Dialog, t. />. 33. 
 Ztifeb. E. a. 3. 30. 
 
 fpeak 
 
The HiJIorj of Ordination. a 1 3 
 
 fpeak in a Dialed (o different from theirs. They 
 make Bi(hops and Presbyters to be one and the fame, 
 he makes them two diftinft Officers, and fays we mril 
 follovj the BiJJj^py as Chnf} doth the Father^ and the 
 Presbyters as the Apoflles (y). Again, T'he Bijhop pre/jdes 
 in the place of God, and the Presbyters in the place of the 
 Coti'ficil of the Apoflles (z). And he pretends Divine 
 Authority for this Diilinction, but produces none. 
 / have^ faith he, cry'd cut in the rnidft of yen, I have 
 fpoken ivith a mighty Voice^t ('with the Voice of God, verfio 
 Lat. vetus) Give heed to the EiJJjop and Presbyter, and 
 Deacons, (a) 
 
 And a little after, the Spirit hath ptiblijljed thefe 
 'things, faying. Do nothing zvithout the Bifiop. 
 
 He ought to have produced fome Authority out of 
 the Apoftolical Writings which are of Divine Infpi- 
 ration, to confirm his Affertion. But the Apoftles 
 no where fay, Do nothing without the Bifiop^ If he 
 means fome Revelation of the Spirit to himfelf, he 
 not only adds to the perfcd Canon of the New Te- 
 ftamcnt, which is forbidden, Rev. 22.18, ip. but cp^ 
 pcfes it, for the Holy Ghofl: hath made all the Presby^ 
 ters Bijhops, as the Apofile fpeaks to the Elders of 
 Ephefus (b). We are to judge of all pretended Reve- 
 lations by the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 2. As thefe Epifiles agree not with the Apoflolic 
 Writings, no more do they agree with the gemiine Wri- 
 tings of the Fathers of the fecond Age. 
 
 Clemens RomanfU, who wrote a little before, or about 
 Ignatim his Time, mentions only Bijhops and Deacons, 
 which is the more confiderable, bccaufe he fpeak? 
 profefledly of the Minifters appointed in the New 
 Teftamcnt. So doth Polycarp fpeak only of Presbyters 
 and Deacons, as we obferv'd before : but Ignatipu in 
 
 (y) Ep, ad Smyrn, p* 6. Idit. Vofs. [z] AJ Magnes.f. 33. (aj 
 jid TbtUd. p. 45, (b) 'Er^ vfAtXi iniZf*»ci ro uytof i^tTo iTno-Koxtsi* 
 -i5.2J. 17. 18. 
 
 his 
 
^^4 The Hiftory of Ordination. 
 
 his Epiflle to Polycarp requires Subjedion to the Bi 
 fijGp, Preshters and Deacons (c). Jujiin Martyr^ and 
 Irenaus 2M0, as we noted above, make no diftindion 
 of Bjlhop and Presbyters. Thefe Fathers are confef- 
 fedly genuine, and agree with the Epiftles of Paul 
 in their account of Bifhops and Presbyters ; but Ig- 
 iiatiHi agrees neither with Apoflles nor with the Ec- 
 cleiiaitical Writers of the fecond Age, and therefore 
 the Author of thefe Epiftles may be juftly fufpeded 
 not to be the true Ignatius. 
 
 3. Of thefe feven Epifiks that are reputed genuine, 
 and defended by Bifhog Pearfon, the Epiftle to Poly- 
 carp is judged to he fpuricus by Archbifjop Ufher, who 
 conceives that no Epiftle was written by Ignatius to 
 Polycarpy befides the Epiftle to the Smymeayn^ which 
 was directed both to him and the Church in com- 
 mon. The Learned Primate gives feveral weighty Ar- 
 guments for his Opinion, as may be feen in the Pre- 
 face to his Edition of Ignatius (d). And he is follow- 
 ed by fome Learned Men of the Romijh Communion^ 
 and among others^ by Cardinal Bona, who reflecting 
 on a Paflage in the Epiftle to Polycarp, hath thefe 
 Words, I add that this Epiflle is not the genuine Offspring 
 of Ignatius, but fuppofititttm, as learned Men have long 
 ago olfervd, and to prove thati have produced feveral 
 Arguments of great Strength, 
 
 Now if one of thefe feven Epiftles be fpuri- 
 cus , the other fix are of doubtful Authority, 
 becaufe the whole Colledion is fuppofed equally 
 Authentick in the Credit of the Florentine Co^y^ which 
 Voffus has publifhed. If any one Part prove fpuri- 
 ous, the whole may be fo, except the fufpefted Part 
 can be prov'd an addition of fome latter Hands 
 either the whole Colledion ought to be received as 
 
 ( ) Ad Polycarp, p. 14. (d) Proleg, ad Ignnt.tap, t. (t) Rerum 
 ttHrgic, lib, I. cal^ 11, 
 
 genuine 
 
The Hijlmy of Ordination. 515 
 
 genuine, or rejeded as fpurious, fince the whole ap- 
 pears to be of one Contexture, and the fame Hand- 
 writing. I am not concern 'd in the Debate between 
 UJher and Pear/on about the Authority oF that Epiftle ; 
 their Difagreement about fo conliderable a Part ot" 
 that Colkdion, is fufficient to render the whole 
 doubtful. 
 
 4. The Author of theje Epiflles pretends to underfland 
 the Aiigelick Hierarchy^ which does not favor of an Apo^ 
 fiol'tck Spirit, The Apoftle Vaul was caught into the 
 third Heaven, and was the fittell Perfon to make a 
 Report of the Heavenly Hierarchy, but all that 
 he thought fit to communicate of his Supercselcftial 
 Difcoveries is this, (f) That be heard Things unuttera^ 
 ble, which it is not lawful for a Man to exprefs. 
 zKilofy it is not poffihle, as fome underfland the Words* 
 Clemens Akxand<inus applies them unto God, whofe 
 Mature cannot he expreffed in Words (g). But they may 
 be underfiood of all the things he faw or heard in 
 Paradife, and among others of the Polity of the in- 
 vifible World, and of good Angels, and the Spirits 
 of juft Men made perfed, which either cannot or 
 mufi not be cxprefs d. 
 
 In another Place he cenfures fome Tlatonizing Chri* 
 flians, who pretended fuch exact Knowledge of the 
 Nature, Order, and Fundions of Angels, as to ex- 
 alt them in the place of Mediators ; under pretence 
 of a more humble Addiefs to God, made ufe of the 
 Mediation of Angels ; thrufting themfehes into thofe 
 things they had not feen, "jalnly puffd up by their Carnal 
 Mind fh). 
 
 The Writings of Vaul feem to hint as i( there were 
 an Angelical Hierarchy, (i; but what it is no Mor- 
 
 (0 1 Cor, 12. 4. "ApfrjTZc, pfjuxitc- {i] To a^h^ron tS ^iS tsTtf^ 
 K,Ui(XTCf^<^. Strom, f. p. )-86. (h) Colof 2. i8, « ^',. iv'^y.ir »>• 
 fiariyut. {i) Eph i. lo. Col. i, ^6. 
 
 Q^ »i 
 
a 5 6 The Ilijlory of Ordination. 
 
 tal can tell, fince it is not reveard in Scripture, from 
 which we mufl derive all certain Knowledge of the 
 World ot Spirits. It is fafEcient for us to know that 
 aU the Angels are 7nintjhing Spirit s^ (k) font forth to^nini- 
 ftev for thoje that (hall inherit Sidvation. 
 
 l^uxIgnatiPH in his Epiflle to the 'frailejtans goes beyond 
 Patili and makes Oftcntation of fuch higii Flights of 
 Knowledge, as the dull TraUejians could not fwallow 
 without running the hazard of being choked. 
 
 Lets hear his own Words : Cmnot /, faith he, write 
 to you Supercaleflial T'hings ? but I am af/aid^ Itfl I Jbould 
 lay before you that which may prove hurtful to you, fince ye 
 are Babes, And forgive me, left being unable to compre- 
 hend them ye fiould be choked. For I a?n able, not as I 
 am in Bonds, to comprehend Supercaleftial Things, and the 
 T laces appointed for Angels, and Princely Conftitutions, 
 and T'hings vifible andinvifible (1). The Chriftian World 
 is obliged to this Gentleman for not choking them 
 with Seraphic Difcovevies. The Apoftles never aflum'd 
 to themfelves fuch fublime 'Notions as this Man 
 doth 5 they humbly acknowledged, that they knew but 
 in part, and prophtfied but in part, and cenfure thofe 
 that pretend to be wife above what is written (m). But 
 the Ignatian Dodor has attained to Specu-ations not 
 reveal'd in the Holy Scriptures ; and tho' he think 
 fit to fupprefs them, another Seraphick Doctor of the 
 fame Age, if we may believe him, has difcovered the 
 Grand Myltery. I mean the Counterfeit D/o;77/a^//>? 
 Areopagite, who has written a Book of the Angelical 
 Hierarchy (n) and another of the Eccleftaftical Hierarchy' 
 
 Both Authors feeni to be Men of the fame Spirit, 
 and to have liv'd about the fame time. And there- 
 ibreit wasadvifedly done of the Lions Editor of jQ/o- 
 
 ciyfthiv.cli-, y< Ttcc, o-y5WffTt; r«« T^'l'OiliKX'ii o^ZK 71 y^ eco^TDCj (n^l) 1 
 
 Cor. 4, 6. (n) De tJalcp Hientrdia* 
 
 uyfius 
 
The Hiflory ofOrdinatim, aay 
 
 nyjjus his Works, to publifh Ignatius his interpolated 
 Epidles with them (o). 
 
 For they are both equally vcrfed in the Angelic 
 Conflitutiony but Ignatius had the Wit to conceal 
 what Dionyjius has made publick, tho' we do not find 
 that his nice and unfcriptural Speculations have eithcc 
 choked OT much edified the learned World 
 
 5. In the Epiflle to the Smyrneans^ he feems to af- 
 fert that the Angels cannot be favd but by Faith in the 
 Blocd of Chriji. His Words are thefe, Let none err, 
 both things Supercalefiial, and the Glory of Angels, and 
 Princes 'vijible and invifible, if they believe not in the Blood 
 of Chri/i, even they are judgd or condemn d. He that 
 receives it let him receive it (p). 
 
 The Scriptures no where afcribe the Juftificatioti 
 or Salvation of Angels to the Blood of Chrift, or to 
 Faith in his Blood. He afliimed not their Nature, 
 nor fhed his Blood for them. All the Holy Angels 
 are fubjed to him as their Head and Sovereign, they 
 adore him, and are the invifible Miniflers of his 
 Kingdom, but Faith in his Blood is tne Duty and 
 Privilege of finful Mortals, who need Reconciliati- 
 on. It may be prefumed, that Ignatius, who famili- 
 arly converfed with the Apoftlcs, and their Writings, 
 would not advance a Dodrine fo inccnfident with 
 theirs. I fuppofe he. learnt it in the fame School ia 
 which he was taught the Angelical Hierarchy. 
 
 6* It feems ftrange b€ Jhould not only dejire but command 
 the Churches not to pray for his Deliverance, He tells 
 the Romansy I fear your Charity, lefl it JJjould injure me (q). 
 Again, / write unto all the Churches^ and commend them 
 all, becaufe I dye willingly for God, if ye do not hinder 
 me (r). Fray unto Chrift for me, that by thofe Infiruments 
 
 (o) opera Dionyf. Areop. (^ Ignat. Epifl, Lugdun. A, D. 1785. (p) 
 Ignat. at Hmyrn t>. tj. -» -.- j«\ |uc>>t Tm-iucni/ffit Hi to ecifjbec ;^g/<r05, 
 ««x«vo<? KeA<ni 10' If, (q) Epift» aU Rom. p. 5',. (t) Ibid p. fj. 'Byt) 
 yti<ptt Trdffnii 7u,\<t cyiiK?\.rjOitnit rj^ c^TtX^efjbctf -Tniffift •— — 
 
 Q_2 (the 
 
aaS TJx Hiflory of Ordination. 
 
 (the wild Beafts at Rome) I may h found a Sacrifice 
 unto God. Not as Peter and Paul do / Command you. 
 They were Jpoftles of Jefus Chrifi, hut I am the leafi. The 
 Trince of the J for Id ivould make a Frey of y/^, and corrupt 
 my Refolution for God ; Let none of you tifat are prefent 
 help him. Be rather miney that is Gc£/. Do not call 
 Jefus Chrifty and hue the fVorld. Let not Envy dwell 
 in you. — / have not zvrit to, you according to the Flejhy 
 but according to the Will of God. If I fiiffer ye have lovd 
 me-, if 1 he a Reprobate^ ye have hated me. 
 
 The defign of this Epiflle to the Romans is to af- 
 fure them of his ftrong Defires and fixed Refolution 
 to die for Chrift, and to defiie them, yea, to com- 
 mand them and all other Churches not to pray for 
 his Deliverance. 
 
 It feems to be the compofure of fome Devout Per- 
 foii in his Celk with defign to animate his Reader 
 to fuffer for Chrift in the Perfon of Ignatius^ and not 
 the Work of that Apoftolical Martyr, becaufe, 
 
 I. His Commands not to pray for his Deliverance 
 are very different from the Air of ?aul\ Epiftles, in 
 which he exhorts the Chriflians to pray for his De- 
 liverance. In his Epiftle to the Romans y which all 
 Chriflians acknowledge to be genuine, hehefeecheth the 
 Brethren for the Lord 'Jefus Chrifl's fake, and for the Love 
 of the Spirity that they ftrive togetheV with him in their 
 Vrayers to God for himy that he weight he delivered from 
 them that did not believe in Judea (Q. Paul 2,n Apoftle 
 intreats the Romans to pray for his Deliverance ; Igna- 
 tius, who was no Apoflle, commands the Romans not 
 to pray for his Deliverance. 
 
 Nor can we imagine that Paul was Jefs willing to 
 die for Chrifi: than Ignatius was, for Luke records 
 concerning him, that he was ready to die for Chriji at 
 yerufalem, and that it was a Heart-breaking to him to 
 
 {I Z^'jl* to the Kom* ts* Jo- : 
 
 be 
 
The HtJIory of Ordination. 019 
 
 be difTuaded from expoiing himfelf to the utmoft ha- 
 zards for Jefus Chrift (tj. 
 
 In like manner he defires the Prayers of the Thejfa- 
 Ivwansy chat he and otheys might h delivered from tin- 
 reafonahle and -wicked Men (u). Nayy our Lord JefiiS 
 himfelf, tho' he was moll certain of the event, and 
 mod willing to offer up himfelf a Sacrifice, pray*d> 
 Futher if It be pofjlbley ht this Cup fafs avjay from me. 
 
 But our Ignatian Epi flier will admit no Prayers for 
 his Deliverance, no not conditional ones ; if it tend- 
 ed to the Giory of God, and the Good of that 
 Church of which he was Bilhop, which had no Paflor 
 in his Abfsnce but jifr^ Chrift, "J^ho alone ivould ov^rfee 
 her, and their Love tc-^ards him, cis he (peaks tn the fame 
 Epifth (\v). The Apofile Paul tho' he had a defire 
 to depart, and to be vjith Chrifl, was willing to abide in 
 the EUjD for the Churches fake- 
 
 2. The Author of this Epiftle, faith he, r-^rites to 
 all th2 Churches, and Commands them all, that iSy he 
 commands them the very fame Things which he here 
 commands the Ro?nan<y that they pray not for his 
 Deliverance, and thereby, as he Uys, contract the 
 guilt of envying, oHjating him and loving the World. 
 Thefe are his hard Interpretations of their charitable 
 Prayers and Endeavours for his Deliverance. I do 
 not find that he writes to the other Churches ^0 com- 
 mand them not to hinder him by their Prayers for his 
 Deliverance. In the Epiftle to the Smyrneans, he only 
 defires, that he may enjoy God by their Prayers (x^. 
 I find nothing of this Nature in the Epiflle to Poly- 
 carp, which alfo concerns the Church of Ephefm (z). 
 In the Epiflle to the Ephejians, he wifhes he may rife a- 
 gain tn his Bonds or Spiritual Pearls, by their Prayers (2i), 
 He dellres the Mignefians to remember him in their 
 
 (t) Acis 11.13. r^) 2 Thejf' l. 3. (w) ^/W/o»®- eewTJjV s^^cxe7F^<r*4, 
 9d if vfjuat (i\ cturof etyccvK- ^oid. p. 61. (x) tp- ad imyrn. p. 8. 
 Ifx cy tY, is^v^yj^ vfjuSy S-jS Ittitv^u.^z) Aq. Foiyc. p. 14. (a). Ad 
 Eph. p. 24. 
 
 0^3 p^^y 
 
^o The Htjlory of Ordination. 
 
 .1 
 
 Prayers, that he may enjoy God (b). He tells the 
 Philadelphiansy your Prayers jhall perfect me towards Gody 
 that I may enjoy him in the Inheritance to which I am 
 caird. He adds, / am 'willing to he juftified thro' your 
 Prajers by the Death y RefurreElion and Faith which is by 
 Jefus Chrifl (c). He in treats the Tralkfians to pray for 
 him to God, that he would count him worthy of the Inheri- 
 tance which he endeavours to enjoy, that he may not be 
 found a Reprobate. 
 
 Thefe are all the Vhcc?; I find, wherein he defires 
 the Prayers of the Churches ; but he exprelles him- 
 feh very differently in thefe from what he writes in 
 the Epiftlc to the Romans, and yet he fays in that 
 Epifcle that he writes to all the Churches^ and Commands 
 the77t the very fame Things that he doth in that E- 
 pif^Ie. It is one thing to pray, that one may be fitted 
 for the Fruition of God, which is the fum of his De- 
 iires in the other Epiftles ; it's another thing to for- 
 bid all AddreiTcs to God for his Deliverance, as pro- 
 ceeding from carnal Love and Men pleafing as he 
 fpcaks (d). 
 
 7. It's fcarce confident that Ignatim fhoiild have 
 fo much liberty and leifure to receive the Vifits of 
 all the Churches, and to write fo many Epiftles as go 
 under his Name, being imder ftrid Cuftody, and u{cd 
 barbaroiifly by his Keepers, as he complains in his 
 Epiftle to the Romans, From Syria to Rome I fight zvith 
 Beafls, by Sea and by Lrrnd, by Night and by Day, being 
 hound by ten Leopards, Cwhich is a Military Order or. 
 Company) who the more Kindnefs is Jhown them, the 
 worfe they are (e). A Man under the conftant Obfer- 
 vation of fo many inhumane Keepers can fcarce be 
 fuppofed to have the privilege of converfing with 
 the Meifengers of fo many Churches, writing fo many 
 familiar Epiftles, and performing Promifes for the fu- 
 
 (b) Ad M^gn. p. 97. (c) AdPailadclph. p. 41,44. (d) AdRom, 
 
 Cure 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. 2^1 
 
 riire. He fpeaks of the Churches that were with him (f), 
 I fiippofe by their Reprefenratives. For fome Churches 
 fent their Bijhops to hiniy others their Treshyters and Dea- 
 cons (g). He {hews his Intention of Writing a fecond 
 Epiftle to the Epheflans, to make knoivn unto them the 
 Dijpenfation which he had begun in the New Man Jefus 
 Chrifty in his Faith and Lo've, in his Paffion and Refur^ 
 reilion, ejferially if the Lord fiouid reveal it to him (h). 
 Thefe Things were reveard already in the New Te- 
 ftament, which is the Meafure of all new Revelations 
 * It does not appear that there was any occafion of 
 writing a fecond Epiftle to the Ephcfians^ cfpecially of 
 fending any New Revelation unro them, nor does it 
 agree with his prcfent Circiimflances to promife 
 what was not in his Pov/er to perform. This his 
 Interpolator Csiw, and therefore he prudently Jeaves out 
 this Paragraph in the interpolated Epiftle to the Ephe- 
 flans (i). 
 
 8. It's unaccountable, how Ignatius be^ng fcnt 
 Prifoner under a ftrong Guard from Antioch in Spia 
 unto Rome fhould fetch fo vail a Compafs as to fail up 
 the Egean Sea, and couch at Smyrna and Troci^, and 
 thence fail into Neapolis in Macedonia, when there 
 was a nearer and more direct Paflage from Antioch to 
 Rome, as will appear to any one that confults the 
 Maps, and obferves Vatd's Voyage from Cefarea to 
 Rome *. The Centurion that quartered Paul, was 
 very courteous to him, but Ignatius was conduced by 
 ten Leopards, as he calls them (kv\ And can it be ima- 
 gined that thofe would allow Ignatius the Liberty of 
 failing fome hundreds of Leagues about to vific the 
 A/ian Churches ? He faith, he was carried bound fro?7i 
 Syria to Rome (1). And in another Place, that it 
 
 (f) Ep. ad Magn. p. ^8. Ad. Trail, p. ft. (g) Ad Philad. p. 4f. 
 (h) Ad Ephef. p. 18. * Gil. 1. 8, 9. (1) Ad Eph. p. 133. (k) Ep. 
 ad Rom. p. y8. (i) Ep. ad Eph, p. 19. 
 
 0^4 plea- 
 
^5^ The Eijlory of Ordination. 
 
 pleafed God tojend him from the EaB to the IVefl (m). 
 Now if he was fent from the EaB to the WeBy what 
 Reafon can be alTign'd why he fhould turn his Courfe 
 Northward, as "trcm and NeapoUs, We find him at 
 Smyrna when he wrote the Epiftles to the Ephefians 
 (n), to the Magnefians (o), to the Trullians (pj, and to 
 the Ramans (qj. He wrote the Epiflles to the Smyr- 
 neans, to Poiycarpy and to the Philadelphians from 
 'tYoa6 {r)y whence he was commanded to fail fudden- 
 ly into Neapolisy and for this Reafon he faith, he can- 
 not write to all the Churches ; and therefore dejires Poly- 
 Carp to write to other Churches ^ to do the fame things fome 
 that were able to fend Aljfengers on Foot to Syria, others 
 to fend Epiflles by PolycarpV Mejfengersy who is defir'd 
 to call a Council worthy of God, and to ordain a fit Per- 
 fon to he fent to Antioch, who might be called a Divine 
 Curfttor (s). 
 
 Having pafs*d from Troas to NeapoIiSy and depu- 
 ted Polycarp to write Epiftles to feveral Churches, to 
 fend Meffengers to Syria, we read no more of his 
 Motions in thofe Epiftles that are reputed Genuine; 
 but by other Epiftles that go under his Name, he 
 went to Philippiy and thence wrote his Epiftles ad 
 \tayfenfcsy ad Jntiochy and ad Hsvon (u). 
 
 One may jiiftly wonder that Ignatius iliould write 
 fo many Epiftles to other Churches, and write none 
 to his own Church of Antioch. It would have 
 become him to write a Paftoral Letter to this 
 Church in che firft Place, as having the Charge of k^ 
 and being now doftitute of its Biftiop. The other 
 Churches had Biftiops of their own, and were none 
 of his Charge, but Anttoch was his Charge, and 
 
 (ra; A. .i Rom. p. «; 6. «5 ^usiv )>vn,iivKTa>!vi^ yuiT* 7:^fji/^x^(^ (n) Ad Eph. 
 pi 3L9. Co) Ad Mign. p. 38. (p) Ad Trail, p. ^-z. (cjj Ad Rom, 
 p. 6i, (r) Vid. Voir. Ignat. p. 8. 15.46. (s) »9 ^nimleti ^io^€ofj^(^ 
 ii^h^af' Ad Polyc, p. I J. (u; Vid. Epift. iuppofit. p. 73. 81 & 
 
 wanted 
 
The Hijfmy of Ordination. ag^ 
 
 wanted a Bifliop. Can any one imagine fo good a 
 Man, To faithful a Paftor as Ignatimy had he written 
 fo many Epiftles, as is fuggefted, fhoald negledt his 
 own Church, which mofl needed his Help, to efla- 
 blifh them in this Day of Trial ? It does not appear 
 what Occafion he had to write to fo many other 
 Churches, but there was juft Reafon why he fhould 
 write to his own Flock. 
 
 He defires Folycar^ to write to the Churches he 
 had not written to, to fend MefTengers or Epiftles to 
 Antioch (w). Can he be fuppofed to defire others to 
 write to them, and forbear himfelf ? The Author of 
 thefe Epiftles makes Ignatim not only a carelefs Shep- 
 herd, but inconfiflent with himfelf. 
 
 He reprefents him as playing the Bijhop in other Mens 
 Diocefcs, but overlooking his own (x). 
 
 But in another Collection of his Epiflles, fomc 
 kind Hand took Care to wipe off this Reproach, and 
 prepar'd a large Epiftle in the Name of Ignatim to 
 the Church at Antioch, and another to Heron Deacon 
 of that Church ; but neither of thcic Epiftles being 
 mentioned by Eujebim fy), they are defervcdly con- 
 demned for fpurious and counterfeit bv the learned 
 World. 
 
 5?. In the Epiftle to the Ephefians, he commends 
 that Church for two Things, in which they excell'd. 
 
 1. That there was no Herefy among them in his 
 Time. Te all Live^ faith he, according to the Truths 
 and no Herefy dwells among you (z). 
 
 2. That there never had been any Herefy among 
 them. May I he found in the Lot of the Ephefian Chri- 
 fitansy who have always confented to the Apoflles in the 
 Power of "Jefus Chrifi (a). 
 
 (w) va^'M? Tuiti \fji,fs^^t* <^x,Xi}<rlet4i Scribes aliis Ecclefiis. 
 
 Vet. Verf. Lat. — - o/ p. Jltxf^ct snji?? yrt^Jt^^uf, el 3 fTHfoXx^* A^ 
 Polyc. p. If. (xj <V5 a«i*T^<« sVio-JcoT©-. I Pet. 4, 15-. (yj Eccl. 
 Hift. ;. 36. (z) cv v[Ai¥ ahfjuioc »i^tiffi^ n^To^yM, Ad. Eph. p. xi. 
 (3} 01 ^ 76ii ^fcAois 5r«vroTs nmivav* p. 24. 
 
 A. 
 
2^4- Th Hijlory of Ordinatimt. 
 
 A. This Account is ditferent from the Apoftlcs 
 Charafter of them. In the Epillle to Timothy^ whom 
 he had defired to flay at Eph3fus, he mentions falje 
 Teac/iers there, who fet up the Righteoufnefs of the 
 Law, and made Shipwreck of the Faith (b). He fore- 
 tells a very great Apoftacy from the Faith (c) ; and as 
 he took Leave of that Church, he tells them, I know 
 that after ?):y departing^ grievous Wohes jhall enter in a- 
 mon^ you, not [paring the Flock. A I fo of your ozun fehef 
 jhall Alen arife, /peaking perverfe Things, to dravj away 
 Difciples after them. Ads 20. 2^, 30. 
 
 I leave the Reader to judge, whether PauVs or Ig- 
 natiHi his Report of this Church be the truefl:. I 
 will only add this. That Cenntbm the Hcretick was 
 at Ephefm, where "John the Apotlle finding him in a 
 Bath, retir'd in halt, and faid, he was afraid lefl the 
 Lath foould fallj fence Cerinthus the Adve/fary of the 
 Truth was within (d). 
 
 Jej-om adds to this Relation, That after the Apo- 
 flles Departure, the Bath fell, and Ctrinthus and hi^ 
 Followers perifhed under the Ruines of it (e). 
 
 Irenaus affirms, that John wrote his Gofpel againfl 
 Cerinthpi6 and Other Hereticks, while he abode at 
 Ephfm (f), who is feconded by Eufebius (g) and Je- 
 rom^ who fays, it was written at the Defire of the Bifhop 
 cf Afia, to chviate the growing Herefies. 
 
 10. The Epillles of Ignatius are without Exception 
 condemn'd by Ntcephorus, Patriarch of ConftantmopUy 
 in the beginning ot the Ninth Century, and by Ana- 
 flafms Bibhothecavius, who lived in the fame Age (h). 
 NicephoYus in his Siichometria reckons up the Cano- 
 nical Books of the Old and New Teflament, and 
 adds a Table of luch as are fpoken again fl or doubt- 
 iu\, and of iuch as are Apocryphal. In the lail Clafs 
 
 (b) I Tim. 1. 5. 7. T 9. (c) 1 Tim. 4. li. fd) Ircn. adv. HxreC 
 5. 5. (e) Adv. Lucikr. (r) Ircn. adv. Hxref. 3. 1 & i. [g) EccL 
 Hift. f, (h) Dail. GC Script. Ignat. lib. 2. c 4. 
 
 he 
 
Tlx HiJIoi-y of Ordination. a 35 
 
 he reckons, i. The Itinerary of Peter. 2. The Itinera- 
 r)' of John. 3. The Itinerary of Thomas. 4. The Gof- 
 pel according to Thomas. 5. 77;=? DoElnne of the Apcftle^j 
 a Book fo called. (5. 3c Books of Clemens. 7. Tfje 
 Books of Ignatius, Polycarp, Faftor and Hermas. 
 
 It's evident here, that Nicefho,us condemns all 
 thefe Books, as equally y^pocryphal, and if fome be 
 fpuriousand fuppofititious, they are all in his Judgment. 
 The learned Bifhop Pearfon conceives they are called 
 j4pocryphal in oppolition ro Canonical, that is, they arc 
 rot divinely infpir'd, but that hinders not but they 
 may be profitably read. 
 
 Larroque anfwers him well, that the Queflion is 
 not in what Senfe the Word Afvcryphal may be taken, 
 but in what Senfe Nicephorus takes it. 
 
 Now it*s plain, he oppofes Apocryphal Books not 
 only to Canonical, but to fuch as are doubtful ; and 
 he palles the fame Sentence on all the Books above- 
 mentioned, of which feveral are acknowledged by all 
 to be fpuricus. 
 
 Valejius obferves, that Apocryphal Books are thofe 
 that are notorioufly falfe, and generally compofed by 
 Hereticks (i), and to this agrees the Teihmony of 
 Hegeftppui in Eufdius fk). Bifhop Pear fen objects, 
 that Volycarp's Epiflle is genuine, that Herm.is's Epi- 
 iHe is commended by many of the Ancients, and 
 therefore Nicephorus cm z be fuppofed to take ^^ocry- 
 phal in the worfe Senfe. 
 
 La-rroqtte {}) anfwers, that all the Books in Nice^ 
 phorus's Catalogue are equally condemn'd, that he 
 joyns them with the Itinerary of Pf^er, and other fpu- 
 rious Pieces, all which are alike Apccr^phal in Nice* 
 phorus his Opinion ; that fome of thofe Authors, 
 whom Pearfcn cites in Favour of Hermas^ fpeak de- 
 
 (.) In Ejfeb. Eccl. Hid. 6. 14. (k) Lib. 4. & 21. (1) Obfcmt." 
 iii l^nar. rciribnii vindiciias 4. 
 
 fpicably 
 
0^^ TIk Hijhn' of OnliihUimi. 
 
 fpicably of him, particularly Ori^eti, who Uys, Si 
 an Ubeilus itlc mcipiendus I'tdetuv, it any one tliinks 
 him worth receiving ; and Ongen confciics, that 
 Hermai's Vnjlor was dcrpirc4 ^7 iomc (m). Jerem 
 charges that Author with Folly (n). Pro/per rejects 
 his Authority, whiwh was produced by Gijjiiu. 
 
 liirtulltiin liiggcils, that it was judg'd Apocnphul^ 
 
 Falfi iiUil Spurtous by .ill the CathoUckChunbss (o) againil 
 
 wiiom he wrote that Book^, being then a MoarwrU. 
 
 'Jtrtulluiii durft not appeal to the Githolicks as to 
 
 Matter ot Fad, if it had not been true. 
 
 Bifhop Pc\irfon was at a great Lot's what to fay, 
 when he cxplam'd TertulIUu\ Ccnfurc of Hamus his 
 Pajicr^ p€/biip)y to JJ^titfy no tnore than tbat in the 
 *yudgn:cnt of the Ckirchy tt vias not a Canoakcil Book, but 
 rather to be rsikouJ amo/tg the Apocryphal j i e. not Qtho^ 
 mull (p). 
 
 Tenui/ictu faith, that in the Judgment of the Church 
 H'}MAs's VVritmg is Apooyphal^ Fjlfi and Adulterous, 
 which is much more than meerly P^on-Qimuial, or 
 EwltfiijJiicaJ, which according to the learned Bifhop 
 are pious, authentick Books, worthy to be read by 
 all Chriiliaus, and next unto Canonical Writings- 
 No wonder then N'lcephorus ihould condemn Her- 
 mas his Pj/?t'r for Apocryphal y fmce he was condemned 
 by the Church long before him. 
 
 ' As to Pohcarps Epiftle, its being condemn'd by fo 
 great a Man as Nicepbo-rus, and by Aiujhi/:us tor A' 
 po.nphMy and rank'd with Books co nfe iled ly //«nfl«/, 
 makes it fufpicious tlut it's a counterfeit Piece. 
 
 inn) Qai a tiuibmUam contemaitur. Philocal. cap. i. (n) Hicr. 
 Jn Vtx^yiz. cap. I. [o] Dc Puviicit. cap.io. Ccdercm tibi, li ^cl■ip:u^a 
 riitoris, que lola mjechos amat, divmo mlUuracntomeruilkc inciJi, 
 \\ noa aL> oinai conci'ij Ecvletiirum ctum vellrarum inter Apocry- 
 pha ii hlli jadiciicair liuitcri & ipib. (p) In verbis Tcrtaiiiani 
 ml a^jui forCific coiirmcftur, qujun P.uiorem Hcrmx non ruiile ex jj- 
 duio ecclctia: JibruniC-.noQicuni, icd potius mtcr Apocryphos, i. c. 
 noQ ciiionicns auir.erurj:!!. Igait. Viadsc. p. 43. 
 
 And 
 
Tbc Hiflory of Ordma'ton, 0^7 
 
 And there is a palpable ContradiElion between the 
 Paragraph v/hich mentions /^/z^r/Ws Epiftlcs and that 
 bet'orc. The one making him dead, the other alive. 
 The former Paragraph exhorts the Philippians to fol- 
 low the Righteoufnefs and Patience of Jgnatiui^ Zox.y- 
 musy RuJHiy Fuul, and the red of the Ap^Jllei, being 
 confident that all thefc have not run in "uainy irut tn Faith 
 and Righteoufnefs, and are tn the Place due unto them 
 "jjith the Lord, -ujith vjhom they have fuff^erd fq). Hcrc 
 he makes Ignatius one of thofc who fuflFer'd with 
 Chrift, had fini(hcd his Courfe, and was gone to 
 Heaven. 
 
 A little after, in the Paragraph that fpcaks of Jg- 
 nattus his Epiftles, Ik; cicfircs of the Philtppians to fig- 
 nify to him what certain Knowledge they have of 
 Ignatiuf, and thofe that are vjith him (r). 
 
 Thefe laft Words arc only to be found in the an- 
 cient Latin Verfion publilhed by V^her^ and before him 
 by loackim Fniomui, Interpreter to Henry IV- King of 
 France (s). 
 
 The rcfl of t lie Paragraph is in Eufebiusy biit whe- 
 ther he omitted to tranicribe it out of the Greek 
 Copy, or whether the Latin Interpreter added to it, 
 is not certain ; but whether it be one or the other, it 
 cannot be deny'd but Pofy:arp\ Epifile had been cor- 
 rupted either by Addition or Mutilation. And if 
 part of that Pararagph about Ignatmi's Epiftfes be 
 fuppofititious, the whole. may be fo; It's certain that 
 Ntuphxirm and Anaflafius judg'd them Apocryphal. 
 There is no queflion but they were well acquaint- 
 ed With what Eufehius fays of Pc/ycarp and Ignatius y 
 and yet they faw reafon to condemn both. Dr. Pear- 
 
 (q) Epift. Pclyc. ad Philip. ir^., -Tm'nti » "^ r.n-TntC-*!. 
 
 fr) Et oc ip(b I^i'io, & d« his qui cum co fu.t, quod ccr lus ag- 
 noveritii, figniLcatc. Folyc id. FhLip. (r Euiu Lu^cuo. Aa.Dom. 
 
 fons 
 
2^8 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 Jons Objedions to Anaflajins his Ccnfure are fully an- 
 fwered by Larroque *. 
 
 The Dodor objeds further, that Nicephorus docs 
 not name Ignatius his Epiftles, nor intend them, but a 
 certain fpurious Book, call'd the DoBrine of Ignatinsy 
 which is condemned for Apocryphal in the Oxon 
 MSS. Indiculusy and in another publifhed by Cotek- 
 riusy out of the French Kings Lihrary (t). 
 
 But Nicephorus condemns all the Writings of Igna- 
 tiusy without any Diftindion, and fo doth Jnaflajius. 
 They would have excepted his Epiftles, had they 
 thoaght them genuine. 
 
 Thefe learned Men apply to the Docirine of Igna- 
 tius y what Nitephorus fpeaks of the Books or Writings 
 of Ignatius indefinitely. They may as well fay, he 
 meant his Epiflles, Ad MArianty Ad Tarfenfesy Ad Jo- 
 hannem Apoflolumy &c. which are confefledly fpurious. 
 He means neither one nor the other, but all the Books 
 or Writings of Ignatius without Exception. And per- 
 haps (y>$'ic)c^) the DoHrine of Ignatius may include all 
 the Writings under his Name, which were defigned 
 for Dodrine or Inftrudion. The Index publifhed by 
 Coteleriu) cenfures the DoBrine of Polycarp. 
 
 The Teftimony brought in Favour of Ignatius his 
 Epifties out of Irenaus is not conclulive, becaufe he 
 matces no mention of any Epifties written by him ; he 
 only quotes a Saying of his, in thefe Words, As one 
 of our ozvn hath fpoken, when, he was condemned to the 
 Beafis for the I'eftimony of Gody I am God's Bread-Corny 
 and when I am ground by the Teeth of the Beaftsy I JJjall 
 be found the pure Bread of God (u). 
 
 Thefe Words of Innaus are to be found in the £- 
 pipde to the Romans, which bears the Name of Igna- 
 tiusy and hence he argues that Irenaus took them 
 out of that Epiftle, and tho' he ufeth the Word, hath 
 
 "'f Obfervat. 6. ufque ad 1 1. { } Vindic. p. 59,60. (u) Iren.adv. 
 
 hxref. /. 28 Quemadmodurn quidcm dc noftris dixit. 
 
 * fpehjly 
 
The liijloyy of Ordmaiion. a 59 
 
 fpokeuy the Meaning is, that Ignatius hath luritten thofe 
 Words. And this Diftinftion hath fpokeyi and hath 
 written, which Dailk infifts on, hath no Force at all, 
 Vihen we know tk' M'^ords are written. 
 
 True, faith Larroque ; when it's certain the Words are 
 written, but that's the Thing in queftion, whether the 
 Ignatian Epiftle to the Romans be genuine. The ASis 
 of that Martyr and Jerom do reftify, that when he heard 
 the Lions roar, he fpoke thefe Words (w). 
 
 And therefore Irenaus, making no mention of any 
 Writing of Ignatius, muft be underflood to refer unto 
 the Words, as fpoken by him. For this Reafon Arch- 
 bifhop UJher did not think fit to urge this Teftimony 
 of Irenaus (x). 
 
 Bifhop Pearfon, who leaves no . Stone unturn'd to 
 gain his Point, objeds feveral Miflakes in Jeroms 
 Hiftory, and that the JBs of Ignatius hts Martyrdom^ 
 are not thofe which were in Being in Irenaus's Time, 
 but a fabulous Compofition of the fixth or fevcnth 
 Age (y> 
 
 Larroque anfwers, That by this Way of Reafoning, 
 he undermines his own Foundations, that if Jeroms 
 Authority may be rejefted, becaufe he is miftaken in 
 fome Things, fo may Eufebius's alfo, who is the beft 
 Evidence for Ignatnn his Epillles, for the Learned 
 have difcovered feveral Hallucinations and Miflakes 
 in him alfo. It's highly probable that Jerom had feen 
 the moft ancient AEls of his Martyrdom, which Irenaus 
 confulted. It would be highly injurious to that anci- 
 ent and eminent Father to fay, He invented what he 
 wrote of that Martyr. This would be indecent, tho' 
 a ready Way to confute ancient Authorities (z). 
 
 There are two Teflimonies produc'd out of Origen 
 by Ignatius's Defenders -, one out of his Prologue on 
 
 (w) Hieron. in Cat!, (x) Prolegom, ad Ignat. cap. 3. p. 13. (y) 
 Vindic. p. 89* (z) Obferv. in Tgnat. Vindic. 14. 
 
 the 
 
^4-0 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 the Canticles, the other out of bis fixth Homily on 
 Luke, But both thele Pieces are of uncertain Autho- 
 rity. 
 
 The former is judg'd to be none o^ Origens, by E- 
 rafmus and Rynandu^ (a), and ftifpedted by Labbe (h). 
 Dr. Fearfon produces three learned Editors of Origeyis 
 Works, who conceive it genuine; but Huet one of 
 them is forced to confefs.thofe imperfed Commenta- 
 ries to be altered and new modell'd by Rujfmus (c). 
 
 The fecond Teftimony out of his iixth Homily on 
 Luh^ is obnoxious to the fame Cenfure. Not only 
 thofe Tracts that were tranflated by Ruffinus are in- 
 terpolated, but thofe that were done by Jerowy if we 
 may believe Ruffinus (d). 
 
 Merlimis, another Editor of Ovigens Works, affirms, 
 that there are Errors in Origens Homilies, foifled 
 in by his Adverfaries Cej. 
 
 Genebrardy the Third Editor, after he had men- 
 tioned the two Homilies on the Canticles which y^- 
 ro?n tranflated, and the intire Preface to Pope Dama- 
 fas, which is the Front of them ; he adds. There is 
 another Fragment under the Name of Origcnj pious, learn- 
 ed and eloquent; this in fome ancient Copies has the Name 
 of Jerom prefix d. He obferves alfo, that Jerom ex- 
 cufes Origens Homilies on Luke, as written when he 
 was young, and fprinkled alfo with fome damned Er- 
 rors (f). Thefe learned Editors therefore do the 
 learned Dodor little Service. 
 
 Labbe the Jeficit alfo fpeaks doubtfully of them (g). 
 
 I will conclude wi:h one Obfeivation more out of 
 Larroque ; It is highly improbable, that Etifebius, who 
 was fo addicled to the Name and Works of Origen, 
 
 (a) Rayn. iaErotcm. p. lyi. (• ) Labb. de fcrlpt. in Eccl. in Orig. 
 (c) Huet. Orig. lib. 3. 1+9. (^) InvC(5l. ad Hieron. lib. x, p. 155. 
 (c) Vid. Hbeu lib. 5. Ong. p. 25-3. (r) GLnebr. Collect, devit. Cc 
 opcrib. Origen. (g) Non deluntqui ambigJiu, Labb. dc fcript. Eccl, 
 Tom. 2. p. 144- 
 
 * that 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. ^^I 
 
 that he was ceufur'd by Gelafius and a Roman Synod 
 upon that Account, would have pafs'd by his Tefti- 
 monies in Favour of Ignatim his Epiflles, had he be- 
 lieved them to be genuine. This is a flrong Argu- 
 ment that the Teftimonies produced now out of On- 
 gen, were not in the genuine Works of that Father, 
 with which Eufd/m was familiarly acquainted (h). 
 
 it's acknowiedg'd by both Parties, that Ignatius 
 his Epiflles are mentioned by no other ancient Au- 
 thor before Eufebim^ befides the three above-named, 
 and the Teftimonies produced out of them have 
 been proved very doubtful. It's true, Etijebim cites 
 Polycarp and Iren^m his Teftimony. But it has been 
 obferv'd already, that Nicephoms and Anaftafms con- 
 demn Polycarp's Works without Diftin6tion j and ad- 
 mitting the Epifile under his Name were genuine, 
 there is great Sufpicion that the Paragraph that men- 
 tions thofe Ep idles is added by feme other Hand. 
 
 One may juftly wonder, if Ignatims Epiflles be 
 genuine, that they are not cited by the uncontefted 
 Writers of the 2d and 3d Age, efpecially fuch as 
 wrote againft the Herefies mentioned in thofe Epi- 
 flles, and it is yet more furprizing that his Teftimony 
 fhould be overlook'd, when they had occafion for it, 
 and produced others of lefs Note, as is done by Ca- 
 jus an ancient Writer againfl: Artemon, who cites Ju^ 
 fiin Martyr, MiltiadeSy latiamtij Clemens, Irenaus, Me- 
 lito, &c. aflerting the Divinity of Chrifl (i), but 
 makes no mention of Ignatius, who in feveral Places 
 affirms him to be God. It cannot be fuppofed he 
 was unacquainted with his Writings, who fhews 
 himfelf well verfed in the Writers of thofe Ages, and 
 i^ he knew him, he had nor overlooked fo great a 
 Name, fince he names thofe that were lefs eminent. 
 It's a poor Shift of the learned Vindicator of Ignatius^ 
 
 (h) 9bfcr7. in VinJic. 19. p. 108, 109. (1; Eufcb. E. H. 5. i8. 
 
 R that 
 
04-^ The Hiftory of Ordination, 
 
 that Cajus did not name him, becaufe he did not 
 write profefledly againft Heretick^ ("k). That an- 
 cient Writer, confuting Artemon'j Herefy^ and fhewing 
 it to be new, he reckons up the chief Writers who 
 floufiftiM before Zephyrinus^ and either profefTedly or o- 
 therwife alTerted the Divinity of Chrift, and none 
 does it more clearly than Ignatius ; and therefore 
 Cajus had not omitted him, had he known him, but 
 had put fo great and apoftolick a Man in the Front 
 of his Witnefles. 
 
 From the Whole, it's doubtful whether Ignatius 
 wrote any Epiflles at all ; it's probable that the Col- 
 ledion which Eufcbhis had was the Work of fome o- 
 ther Hand, who fathered his Compofure on that 
 great Man, as was ufual with the 2d and 3d Ages, 
 to procure it Authority. The Defign being fious, to 
 encourage ^Martyrdom, and politick, to advance the 
 Power of Bifliops, it might eafily pafs uncenfur'd, as 
 fome other Writings did, particularly the S) trills Ora- 
 cles, which were urged by the Chriftian Apologifts 
 of the 2d and 3d Centuries againft the Heathens, as 
 if they were Authentick. Tho LaSl ant itis, who makes 
 great ufe of them, confeffes that the Heathen difown'd 
 the Authority of them, and faid, that the SybilUne 
 Verfes, that fpoke exprefly of Jefus Chrift and the 
 Myfteries of Chriftianity, were counterfeited by the 
 Chriftians (Q. 
 
 (k) Vindic. p. \0f, io5. (1) Aiunt non efle ilia Carmina Sybil- 
 liaa, fed i noftris confi^a atque compofita, LadV. Inftit. Div. 4. 15. 
 
 i 
 
 CHAP. 
 
The Hijhry of Ordination. 245 
 Chap. III. 
 
 ^0 the Chief Vresh)ter^ who was fiiN the Bijhop 
 and Paftor of the Churchy did of Qourfe belong 
 the Adminiflration of all Ordinances^ as the Chief 
 and more im?nediate Paflor of the Church, Mi' 
 nifiers Elected by the People ; when and how de* 
 priv^d of that Power, The Original of Laj-* 
 Patrons. Presbyters not fujfred to adminijier 
 Ordinances without the Bijhofs Confent^ ^etfjar^d 
 in the Government of the Church, 
 
 Prop. IX. A Fter the Vyr/nitive Churches chvfe one Chief 
 -^~*' Treshyter^ who ivm Jliled the B/jbop and 
 PafioY of the Churchy the Adminiflration of all Ordinances 
 did of Coiirfe belong unto him as the Chief and more im^ 
 mediate Paftor of the Church, and not unto the other Pref- 
 byters without his Confent. This feemed neeeflary for 
 the Peace and Union of the Church. Presbyters had 
 all Minifterial Power committed to them in Ordi- 
 nation, but the regular Exercife of that Power muft 
 be in a conftituted Church, and they could not put 
 forth any Miniflerial Ad: without the Confent of the 
 Church and the Paftor in poileffion. Ordination 
 gives the Power, but the Exercife of it depends on' 
 the Call or Confent of fome particular Church, Church- 
 es are golden Candlefiicks, and Minifters are as burning 
 and pining Lights^ but they cannot fliine until they 
 be put in their proper Sockets. They muft neither 
 ufurp the Office, nor intrude on the Exercife of it. 
 God is the God of Order and not of Confulion. 
 To this End confider two Things. 
 
 I. That the Exercife of the' Paftoral OlFice de- 
 pended on the Eledion of the People in the primi- 
 tive Church. This will not be denied by fuch as are 
 
 R t acquaint- 
 
^4-4- '^^^^ Htjlory of Ordtnatmi. 
 acquainted with the Fathers and ancient Councils o? 
 the Church. 
 
 Cyprian faith, that the Teofle bath the chief Tower of 
 chitjing worthy Priefis, or rejujing the unworthy (^). And he 
 adds a little after, that it miiR- be received a6 ^Divine 
 Tradition and an Apoflolical Obfervation, and that it 
 was obfervd among theniy and almofl in all the Provin- 
 ces, that for the right Performance of Ordination, the 
 neighbouring Bifhops meet together in that Congregation^ or 
 Teople, for whom a Ruler is to be ordain d^ and the Bifhop 
 is chofen in the Prefeme of the People, who have mosJper' 
 feB Knowledge of the Life of every one, and have flriBly 
 obferved their manner of Converfation (b)- 
 
 It were eafy to produce hundreds of Teflimonies 
 afferting the Power of the People tochufe their own 
 Paftorsi but that would fwell this Difcourfe into too 
 great a Balk. 1 fhall only note, that by thi^ Tefti- 
 niony of Cyprian, it appears to have been the general 
 Pradice in the ancient Church for the Paftor to be 
 ordain'd in the Prefence of the People, who had the 
 chief Power of chuflng or rejeding them, and that 
 iwis Practice was of Divine and Apoflolical Original. 
 It appears that the People were to ad in conjundion 
 with the Paftors and Presbyters, and that the Paflors 
 could not ordain without the Choice and Confent of 
 the People, nor could the People fet up Paftors 
 without the Approbation of Neighbouring Bifhops. 
 Hence popular Eledions, without the Condud 
 and Approbation of the Minifters, are forbidden 
 by the Council of Laodicea (c). But the Eledion of 
 the People was Iwdg^d fo ncceffary, that the Bifhops 
 that got the Epifcopal Throne without it were judg-^ 
 ed tyrannical and not lawful Bijbops, and needed a mi- 
 litary Force to eftabli/h them, which Porphyry made 
 
 Ca) Ipfa maxime habet poteftatem vel eligendi di^nos facerdotes 
 vel indignos rccufandi. Ep. 68. (b) Cypr. ibid. ( ) Non pcrmit- 
 lendura turbis cJectioncs ftcerc. Dion. Cod* Can. ii(S« 
 
Th Hiflory of Ordinatim. 04.5 
 
 ufc of at y^ntioch to fupply the want of the Peoples 
 CalJ (d). The fame Complaint is made by Leo the 
 Firfl, that Bijhops -were fet over [orni^ Cities that were un- 
 l<nown to them, and that b) Force of Arms they tumul- 
 tiioufly invaded the Churches^ who were depriv'd ot 
 their own Bifliops ('t). 
 
 He adds, As he who is known and approved is peacea- 
 bly fought for j fo Force inn':i needs he ujed to inipoie an 
 unknown Perfon- And a little after, Let him thai is to 
 be fet over all be chofen by all (f). To this agrees the 
 Conftitutions of the Apofllcs, wherein Peter is made 
 to fay, that he who is to be ordained Bijhop mufl be blamc- 
 lefs in all 7hings, chofen by all the People ad the ?nofl wor- 
 thy (g). This fliewsthatin the 3d and 4th Age the 
 EleBion of the People was thought of ApoflQlical In- 
 ftitiition. 
 
 When Ambrofe was chofen by the unanimous Con- 
 fent of the People of Mtliin, and declined the Epifr 
 copal Office, Valentine the Emperor writes to the ]^i- 
 fhops to proceed to ordain him> and fo to obey Gcdy 
 who had cominanded him to be ordain d, for he is c'-ofen^ 
 faith the Emperor, rather by divine than humane defig- 
 nation *. 
 
 So great a Strefs was laid on it, that the want of 
 it was an invincible Bar to the Exercife of the Epif- 
 copal Power. Hence the Canons called the Apoflles^ 
 do depofe fuch Bilhops as are chofen by the Civil iMdgi- 
 Jirate (h). 
 
 This Canon is reviv'd by the fecond Council of Nicey 
 which the Greeks call the 7th general Council, and ex- 
 tends what the Apoflolical Canon fpeaks of Bilhops 
 to Presbyters and Deacons alfo, deposing not only 
 the Perfon ordain'd, but all that communicate with 
 him (1). 
 
 (d) Niceph. Eccl. Hift, ij. 30. (c) Leon. Epift. 89. cap. 5-. (f) 
 Qui prxfuturus eft omnibus, ab omniuus eligitur. Leo. ibid, (g] 
 (Conft. Apoft. 8. 4. • Socrar. Hilt. 4, 50, (h) Can. Ap. 3^0. in 
 rliQiio. (i; Synod* Sept. Cau, 3. 
 
 Fx ^ To 
 
24.6 The Htflory of Ordination. 
 
 To this agrees the Council of Paris^ about the 
 Year 552, which requires the Eledion of the People 
 and Clergy on Pain of Excommunication (k). 
 
 The 3rh general Council of Confiamh/opky held un- 
 der Bq/i/ the Emperor, about the Year 871, depofes 
 all ' Bifliops that are made by the Craft and Tyranny 
 ^ of Princes, becaufe they pollcfs the Gift of God, 
 
 * not by the Will of God, and Rights and Canons of 
 
 * the Church, but by the Will of carnal Senfe, and 
 
 * are of Men and by Men (1). 
 
 This undoubted Right of the People to chufe their 
 own Minifters was by degrees taken from them. The 
 Princes and Popes alliim'd to themfelves the Choice 
 of Bifhops, the Bifliops and Lay-Patrons chofe the 
 Presbyters, and the People were wholly excluded 
 from the Choice of both. 
 
 The Power of Lay-Tat/ons was originally founded 
 in their Donations to the Church. To encourage 
 which, yuflinian made a Law, That if any Perfon 
 built a Houfe of Prayer, and endowed it, he fhould 
 have Power to nominate the Clergy that were to offi- 
 ciate there ; but if the Bi/hop found them unqualified 
 for the Place, he niight ordain fucb ss he judg*d more 
 worthy (m). 
 
 Charles the Great made a Conflitution, that if the 
 Laicks (i. e. Lay-Patrons) prefented unto the Biflipps 
 fuch as are of good Converf^tion and Doctrine, tq 
 be confecratcd and infuituted in their Churches, they 
 muft not prefumeto rejed them on any Pretence what- 
 foever (n). 
 
 The pth Council oi Toledo allows the Founders of 
 Churches the Privilege to chufe fit Rectors to fervein 
 the Churches built by them (o). 
 
 Some Footfleps of the ancient Pradice of Ordain^ 
 
 (k) Concil. Paris. Can. 6, vid. Goncil. Aurel. 5. Can. J & 4» 
 (1) Concil. Con flant. 8. Can. rx & 22. (m) Novell. 113. cap. 18, 
 (n; Conilitut. Carol. M. per Anfeg. (0) Cone. Toler. 9, Can. 2. 
 
The Hiflory of Ordination. l^n 
 
 ing in the Prefence of the People, and with their Confent, 
 may be obferved in our Bifnop's Addrefs to the Peo- 
 fie at the Ordination of Priefts, in thefe Words : ' If 
 
 * there be any of you who knows any Impediment or 
 
 * notable Crime in any of them, forthe which he ought 
 ^ not to be received into this holy Miniflry, let him 
 
 * come forth in the Name of God, and fliew what the 
 
 * Crime or Impediment is Cp). This was a very/^r- 
 tinent Demand, when the Pcrfon was perfedly known 
 to the Congregation in and for which he was to be or- 
 dain'd, but when the Ordination is performed at a 
 great Diftance from the People, among whom he is 
 to officiate, and in a Congregation of meer Strangers 
 that knew him not, the Appeal to the People is im- 
 proper, and only a Matter of Form. 
 
 It was therefore very prudent Advice which was 
 given in the Council of Ti-ent, ' That the Voice and 
 
 * Confent of the People in Ordinations being taken 
 ^ away, the Pontifical alfo ought to be correded, 
 
 * and thofe Places removed which make mention 
 
 * thereof, becaufe fo long as they continue there, the 
 
 * Hereticks will make ufe of them, to prove that the 
 
 * AfTiftance of the People is nccelFary. He fpAd, the 
 ' Places were many, but to recite one in thr; Ordina- 
 
 * tion of Priefts, the Bifhop ordaining fairh. That iV 
 *hath been conftituted by the Fathers, not without 
 
 * Caufe, that the People fhould have a Voice in the 
 
 * Ordmation of the Redors of the Altar, that they 
 
 * may be obedient to him whom they have ordained, 
 
 * in regard of their confentingtohis Ordination (q). 
 
 It is obferv'd by another Doctor in that Council^ 
 ^ That the Ufe of Letters Teftimoniai begun after 
 ^ that the People left to be prefent at the Ordina- 
 ^ tions, and the Clerks began to be Vagabonds, and 
 
 (p) The lorn: 
 CoH/jcil of Trent 
 
 ef the OrdA'mi 
 
 ng of Friejis» 
 
 R 4 
 
 (q}F. 
 
 P.'. 
 
 
 ofthi 
 
 was 
 
248 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 * was introduced in Supplement of the Prefencc of 
 ' the People (r). 
 
 2. As the People anciently chofe their own Paflors 
 or Bifhops, fc all Ordinances were ordinarily admi- 
 tiiftred by the chief Pallor, and not by Presbyters, or 
 affiftant Paftors, except with his Confent. 
 
 Juftin Martyry who profeffedly defcribes the Wor- 
 fhip of Chriilians in the 2d Age, affirms, that all 
 Ordinances were managed by the Prefident orBifhop. 
 The Publick Prayers were offered by him. * The 
 
 * Prefidenr, faith he, according to his Ability, fend- 
 
 * eth up both Prayers and Thankfgivings (s). 
 
 After the Reader had read in the Writings of the 
 Apoftles or Prophets, more or lefs as the Time 
 would bear, the Prdident preached and exhorted the 
 People to imitate thefe good Things that were read 
 to them (tj. 
 
 The Adminiftration of the Eucharid did belong to 
 the Bifhop alfo, as the fame Author obferves {a), 
 
 Baptifm was general'y adminiftred by the Bifhop 
 in his Church, or Diocefs, as "tenulUan fpeak^ ; ' At 
 
 * Baptifm, we pro fefs under the Hand of the Ruler 
 
 * or BiCiop, that we renounce the Devil, his Pomps 
 
 * and his Angels f. 
 
 Cjp'ian appropriates Baptifm to the 'Pr.^pofiti or Bi- 
 ftiops of the Church '\ So did that of Bapriim ; for 
 which Reafon, the Biihop is ftiled, ' Our Father af> 
 
 * ter God, becaufe he hath regenerated us into a 
 
 * State of Adoption by Water and the Spirit (x). 
 
 For the fame Reafon they Maid Hands for Confir- 
 ' mation, and reconciling Penitents.' ' By whom, fay 
 
 * the Conftitutions^ the Lord bears Witnefs in your 
 ! Baptifm to the Bifhop's Impofition of Hands (yj. 
 
 (r) Htft, of the Council of Trcnx, L 6. p. 463. (s) oa-yj ^dvat^iq. 
 Apol. z. (r) •iXTd'^jW? <^.fltA<5>K. jail, M. ibid, (u) ivx^ecft<pjazt4'T(S^- 
 t5 «rS?«-wr©~ . luft. M.ioid. (x) Cfin;l, Apoil. i if. f D^ Coron... 
 
 Milit. fub aunftiris manu •— * Nou rufi in Ecciefia prxpoiiti 
 
 iicercbaptizaic. tp. 73. (v) CoaiL Ap. tvji. 
 
 Again, 
 
The Hiflory of Ordination. 24.9 
 
 Again, ' We ought to honour them, who by Wa- 
 < ter have regenerated us, and have filled us with the 
 
 * Holy Ghoft {z). Confirmation and Undion were 
 anciently an Appendix of Baptifm (a), and therefore 
 the fame Perfon that baptizJdy did alfo lay on Hands 
 for Confirmation. 
 
 Their admitting Perfons by Baptifm into the 
 Church, was the Rcafon why the Reconciling of Pent- ^ 
 tents was alfo appropriated to them. Thus the Con- , 
 ftitution, ' As you admitted the Heathen after In- 
 ' ftrudion by Baptifm into the Church, fo you muft 
 
 * reftore this Penitent by Impoiition of Hands, be- j 
 ' caufe he is purged by Repentance^ and intcrefted ' 
 ^ in the Prayers of all the Faithful, and Impofition 
 
 * of Hands fliall be inflead of Baptifm, for by the 
 
 ' laying on of our Hands the Holy Ghoft was given * 
 
 * to fuch as believed (b). 
 
 It feems highly reafonable, that the fame Perfons 
 who had Power to admit Members into the Church 
 by Eaptifrn, fhould be impower'd to readmit them 
 by laying on of Hands, except we fancy the laying of 
 Hands on Penitents, for which we have no Com- 
 mand nor Example in the New Teflament, to be 
 greater than the Sacrament of Baptifm, inflituted bv 
 our Lord Jefus Chrifl. 
 
 In the Adminiftration of the Lord's Supper, the 
 ' Presbyters flood on the right and left Hand of the 
 *■ Bifhop, as Difciples that fland about their Maflcr,' 
 fo the Conflitution commands them (c). 
 
 The Presbyters might adminifler the fame Ordi- 
 nances, but not without the Confent of the chief 1 
 Paflor or Bifhop, as Ignatius obferves : ' It is not law- \ 
 ' ful, faith he, without the Bifliop, either to baptize 
 
 * or to celebrate the Lord's Supper, but that which 
 
 (z) Ibid. 2. 33. (a) Jaft. M. quxft. 157. ad Orthod, Cypr- Ep. 
 73- (b) Conft. Ap. 1. 41. (c) Coua, Ap. 8.11. 
 
 ^^^ * He 
 
550 Th Hi/lmy of Ordination. 
 
 * he approves is pleafing to God, that every thing 
 
 * that's done may be firm and flable (d). 
 
 The Primitive Presbyters were ufually the young- 
 er Minifters that lived with the Biihops or Paftors, 
 as Difcipl-5 or Learners, and Ajfiftants to them when 
 occafion required, as our Curates are to Parifh Mini- 
 fters, who are Presbyters of the fame Order with the 
 Rector of the Parifh, and have an inherent Power to 
 adminifter all Ordinances, but are inferior to him 
 as to the adual difcharge of their Power ; and Order 
 requires they fhould be fo, fince the Parijh ReElor is 
 the legal Incumbent and PaftoTy to whom the over- 
 light of the Congregation is committed. 
 
 The Presbyters could not baptize, nor adminifter 
 the Lord's Supper without the Bifhop's Leave, for 
 the Honour of the Church, as "tertuUian fpeaks (e). 
 
 Nor could they peach without his Leave, for it 
 was the Biihop's Province to minifter in the Wor4 
 and Sacraments (f). 
 
 They were obliged, efpecially on the Lord's Days, 
 to teach all their Clergy and People the Oracles of 
 of Piety, for fo the iixth Council of Conftantinople 
 ordains, ' They that prefide in the Churches muft e- 
 < very Day, efpecially on the Lord's Days, inftru(5t 
 
 * all their Clergy and People, in the Oracles of Re- 
 
 * ligion, proving the Determinations of Truth out of 
 
 * the divine Scriptures, &c. (gl. 
 
 Balfamon obferves on this Canon, ' That the Bi- 
 c f}iops only are impower'd to teach the People (h). 
 
 islor could the Presbyters abfolve Offenders with- 
 out the Bifliop (1), but with his Confent they might 
 lay on Hands for Confirmation, and Reconciliation 
 of Penitents (k.) 
 
 [A\ Ep. ad Smyrn. (c) Non tamen fine Epifcopi autboritatc prop- 
 ter ecleL hcnorem. Tert. de Bapt. (f) Aug contra Cre^on. 2. 
 II. {z\ Synod. 6. in TruUo, Can. 19. (h) .Cod. in Can. ibid. (.) 
 Cvpr Ep. II. earth. Cone. 3. Can. 32. (k) rm ^ 6 irffo-^mf©- 
 >Tm'3\«n ;c«>5 Ciem. Alex.Psd. 3. n. Conft. Ap. 3,20. 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. ,051 
 
 Indeed, they could not put forth any Ad: of Go- 
 vernment without the Bifhops ; hence that Canon of 
 the Council of Jrlcs, ' Let the Presbyters do nothing 
 'without the Confent of the Bifliops (o). 
 
 Nor could the BiJliop without them : He might 
 preach and adminifter the Sacraments without them, 
 as he was the PaRor of the Flock, but /;/ JBs of Go- 
 'vernment he was obliged to joyn his Presbyters. 
 
 The Council of C^r^^z^f injoyns 'the Biftop tp 
 
 * hear no Man's Caufe without the Prefence of his 
 
 * Clergy, otherwife the Determination of the Bifhop 
 
 * fliallbe void, ex<;ept it be confirm'd by the Prefence 
 
 * of the Clergy (p). 
 
 The Conftitutions do appoint all Church ' Judg- 
 
 * ments to be on the fecond Day after the Sabbath, 
 *■ and that the Deacons and Presbyters fk with the Bi- 
 yjjop on the Throne of Judgment , Judging in Righte- 
 ' oufnefs and without Refped of Perfons (ft)- Ke^v*? 
 Judgment is afcribed to the Presbyters and Deacons, 
 but the Bifiiop pronounced the Sentence. 
 
 Cyprian tells his Presbyters, that from his entrance 
 on his Epifcopal Charge, he determined to do no- 
 thing without their Council, by his own private 
 Judgment {]). 
 
 CorneliHi, Bifhop of Rome, when the Cafe of the 
 Penitent Confeflbrs that defired to return to the Uni- 
 ty of the Church was laid before him, ca//s a Pref- 
 hyteyyy and would do nothing without them (q). 
 ■ Cyprian defires Ccrnelim to read his Letter to his 
 mofl flourijhing Clergy that prefided with hiWy and to 
 the moll: holy and the moft numerous People W. 
 
 GrotiM6 makes the Power of the Keys eflential to 
 the Office of a Presbyter, / call tljem Preshytersy faith 
 he, imth the whole ancient Churchy who feed the Church by 
 
 (0) Cone. Arelat. Can. 19. (p) Carth. Cone. 4, can. 23, {^) 
 Conlt. Ap. z, 47, (t) Ep. 6. (4) Ep. 46, in Cypr. placuit contrahi 
 Pfesbytcrium. (r) £p. ^5. FlorcmilTimo lUic dero recum pr^ridentu 
 
 preach" 
 
251 The Hijlory oj Ordination, 
 
 preaching of the Word, Sacraments and the Vjeof the Keys,, 
 which was infep arable by Divine Laiv (Q. 
 
 Ignatim, who fo zealoufly afferts the Superiority of 
 Bifhops, acknowledges that the Presbyters hold the 
 Tlace of the Council ef the Apoftks (t). And the fame 
 is affirmed by the Author of the Conftitutions, Ton 
 wuR efleem the Fresbyters oi in the place of the Apoftles^ 
 iji6 Teachers of the Knoiuledge of God; and he cites for the 
 proof of this the Apoflles Commiflion in M?^ 28. 19. 
 
 The Bifhops were obliged to joyn the Presbyters 
 with them in Church Ccnfures and Ordination. 
 Hence the Council of Laodicea appoints the Presby- 
 ters to enter the Sacred "Tribunal with the Bifhop, and 
 not before him, except the BifiiQp were (ick, or from 
 home (wK 
 
 The Confiitutiotts affign a doubje Portion to the 
 ' Presbyters who labour in the Word of Doclrine, 
 
 * in the Honour of the Apoflles of the Lord, whofe 
 ' Place they polTefs as the Bifhops, Counfellors, and 
 
 * the Churches Crown, for they ar^ th^ Council and 
 
 * Senate of the Church (xj» 
 
 Nay, ^be Presbyters had fo great a Ihare in the 
 Government, that the Determinations of the Bifhop 
 were void if not conflrm'd by the Prefence oi the 
 Presbyters, as we obferv'd above : nor could the Pref- 
 byters do any thing without the Bifliop (y). 
 
 Firmilian pbferves, ' That the EJders who prelide 
 
 * in the Church are pofTefs'd of the Power of bapti- 
 
 * zing, and of laying on of Hands, and pf ordain- 
 ' ing (z). 
 
 As to Ordination, the Bifiiops ^vere obliged to 
 perform it Communi Concilto Presbyterormfi,* in the Com- 
 
 (1) De Iniper. ll. I« (S-) nsH ^av ^io-f^vri^av «§ rasra* «•»»£(%*» 
 T«v> e/jTOs-oAwv Ep. ad MagneC. (u) Conft. Ap. a. 26. ol n <7r%iv(i9' 
 TteuHi, 70X01 n^£t ivOT(r7«/«'!' t/f^T* ttfofAt^oicav. (w) Synod. Laocr. 
 Can, f6. (x) eHv f(gr^ T TOTTOf Qu^Uasticr tf — - truvi^iof f^ fiaxk "^ ijca?^^ 
 rwt? Conft. Ap. i. 28. (y) Coac. Laod. m Dionyi'. C«d. can.iaa. 
 (zj firm ad Cypr. ep. 7>. * Hier. ad Evagr, 
 
 mori 
 
The Hi/lory of Ordination. -15:^ 
 
 nion Council of Presbyters, as all other Ad:s of 
 Government were managed. And therefore Cyprian 
 is forced to excufc his Ordaining Aurelim and Celeri" 
 nus Readers, in the abfence of his Clergy and Peo- 
 ple (a). 
 
 The Council of Carthage injoyns all the Presbyters 
 that are prefent to lay their Hands by the Bifhop's 
 Hand on the Head of him that is to be ordained 
 Presbyter (b). 
 
 Indeed, a Deacon might be ordain'd by the folc 
 Impofition of the Bifiiop's Hand, ^ becaufe he is con- 
 
 * fecratcd not for the Priellhood but for inferior 
 
 * Service (c). So that according to the African Bi- 
 fhops (of which there were 214 in this Council the 
 Impofition of the Presbyters Hands was as neceffary 
 to the Priefthood as that of the Bifhop. 
 
 We muft not therefore wonder, that in the ancient 
 Church Ordination was appropriated to the B.-j/.wp, for {& 
 "ivere all other Ordinances^ fuch as Preaching, Baptizing, 
 the Lord's Supper, &c. which the Presbyters could 
 not perform but with his Confent and Approbation : 
 As our Parifh Curates now can't without the Con- 
 fent of the Redor, tho' both are Minifters of one 
 and the fame Order, 'Twas the Relation of the 
 Bifhop to the People, as their Paftor, that impow- 
 er'd him to adminifter all Ordinances to them. And 
 the Presbyters being only his Affiftants and Curates, 
 could neither preach nor adrtiinifter Sacraments, much 
 Icfs ordain without his Confent. 
 
 But by the Bifbop's Confent, they might admini- 
 fter all Ordinances, Ordination iik\i not excepted, 
 as appears by the Council of Ancyra^ Can. 15. * It's 
 
 * not lawful for the Country Bifhops to ordain Pref- 
 ^ byters or Deacons, nor for the City Presbyters m 
 
 (a) Cypr. ep. 33. and 34. {h) Cone. Carth. 4. Can. 3. {c) Ibid. 
 Can. 4. 
 
 ^ a- 
 
3 54 The Hiflory of Ordination. 
 
 ^ another Parish, unlefs they be alJow'd by the BifLop's 
 ' Letter (d). 
 
 It's obfervable by this Canon, that the City Pref- 
 byter might ordain by the Bifhop's Confent. But we 
 fhall have occafion to fpeak more of this Canon 
 hereafter. • ^ 
 
 From all that has been faid, it appears that in the 
 Opinion of the ancient Church, 
 
 I. Presbyters and Bifliops had an inherent Power 
 to adminifter all Ordinances. . 
 
 2. That the main difference between a Bifhop and 
 Presbyter was, that the former had a Paftoral Charge, 
 the latter had not, but was the Bi (hop's Curate and 
 Affiftant. 
 
 g. That as Trefentatioriy Inftittition and InduBiori 
 gives a Man a legal Inveftiture among us, and makes 
 him ReEior of a PariCh ; fo the Eleftion of the Church 
 anciently advanced a Presbyter to the Paftoral or E- 
 pifcopal Office, without any new Ordination, as is ob-' 
 ferv'd by Hilarim the Deacon. * The Apoftle, faith he, 
 ' in I "Tim. 5. after the Bifhop fab joy ns the Order of 
 
 * Deacons, why fo ? but becaufe there is but one 
 
 * Ordination of both Bifhop and Presbyter, for 
 < both are Priefts, but the Bifhop is the firft 
 ' Prieil (e). 
 
 To this agrees the Account that Jerom gives of 
 t^(\c^\{hopo£ Alexandria, ^ That from Mark the Evan- 
 
 * gelift to Heradm and Dionyjius, the Presbyters chofe 
 ^ one of themfelves, whom they advanced to a high- 
 
 * er Degree, and called their Bifhop (f). 
 
 It is certain that the Apoftle in his Epiflles to 7/- 
 mothy and Tjtus gives no Directions about the Confe- 
 cration of Bijhofs as diflind: from the Ordination of 
 Treshyters, tho' he treat profefledly of the Qualifica- 
 tions and Ordination of Presbyters (gj. 
 
 (d) Cone. Ancyr. can. 13. ^ag/i tS ixir^TKoetf \}sjo ^rS ima-KOTrX'' 
 (e) Hilar. Comment, in i Ttm. 3. (f) Hieron. Ep. 85 ad Evagr. (g) 
 I Tim. 3. ami f. 21. 
 
 It's 
 
The Hi/lory of Ordinahmo i 5 5 
 
 It's true, in after Ages fucli Presbyters, as were 
 chofen to be Bijhops or Overfcers of the Church, were 
 committed to God by Prayer and the Impofition of 
 the Neighbouring Brfiop's Hands, as were the Anh- 
 bijhops alfo, whom all acknowledge to be no diftind: 
 Order above Bifhops. But of the Forms ufed at the 
 Ordination of Presbyters and Bifhops, we fhall have 
 occafion to fpeak hereafter. 
 
 There is much reafon for Ordaining a Farijh Reclor 
 when he enters on his Parochial Charge, as there 
 was for Ordaining Bifhops in the ancient Church, 
 whom we lliall prove anon to have been but PariJJj 
 Bffiops, or Re(5tors. The ordaining of a Presbyter to 
 his Redoral or Parochial Charge would no more ad- 
 vance him above the Order of his Curate, or Subjed: 
 Presbyters, than the ordaining of^ an Archbiiliop ad- 
 vances him above the Order of inferior Bifhops. 
 
 4. As the EleFtion of the People anciently made 
 a Bijhop or Paflor of a particular Church, fo doth 
 Inftjtution and InduBio): make a Refior of a Parifh with 
 us. No Perfon by the ancient Canons could be 2 
 Bifhop without the Peoples Choice, nor can any Per- 
 fon now be a parochial Redor unlefs he be legally in- 
 ftituted and induded. 
 
 5. As a Redor legally inftitutcd has Power to ad- 
 minifler all Ordinances to his Flock, and the Curate 
 or Curates have no fuch Power without the Redor s 
 Content, fo the primitive Bifhop, chofen by the Peo- 
 ple and Presbyters, (h) had the fole Power of ad- 
 miniflring Ordinances, and the Presbyters could not 
 do it without his Confent. 
 
 6. That it feems very reafonable, that he who had 
 the chief Management of other Ordinances, fhould 
 have the fuprcme Power of Ordination, and it would 
 have been very irregular for the Afjljiam Presbyters, 
 vvho adminiftred no Ordinances without the Bijhop 
 
 (h) Conft.Apoft. 
 
 or 
 
256 Tlx Hijloiy of Ordination. 
 
 or Paftbr, to aflume to themfelves the foJe Power of 
 Ordination. While that facred Ordinance was not 
 clog'd with any finful Conditions, and the Biihops 
 kept within the juft Bounds of their Office, the Pa- 
 flors and Presbyters had the fame inherent Power, 
 but the exercife of it depended on the regular Call 
 of the Church. 
 
 He that was call'd to the Paftoral O^ce was there- 
 upon ftiled the Bifiop or Overfeer of the Flock, which 
 was coTnmitted to his Charge and Ov^erfight. In the 
 Greek Church it fhould feem that the Bifhop or Pa- 
 flor was allow'd to ordain his own Presbyters (i). 
 But they were chofen by the Suffrage and Judgment of 
 the whole Clergy^ (k) and the Vresbytery and Deacons 
 flood by the Bijhop ivhile he laid on his Hands and 
 frayd (\). 
 
 Chryfoflom was charged, how truly is uncertain, 
 that he made Ordinations without the cbnfent of 
 his Clergy, Phot, in Chryf. Tom, 8. 
 
 In the Latin Church the Bifhop pronounc'd the Be- 
 nedidion, laid his Hand on the Head of the Pref- 
 byter to be ordain'd, and all the Presbyters that ivere 
 frefent, laid their Hands on his Head by the Bifiofs Hand 
 (m). The ancient Latin Ritual of Ordination, which 
 was written, as Morinm thinks, about the beginning 
 of the Sixth Century, for the ufe of the Church of 
 Poitiers, injoyns the Presbyters to lay on their Hands in 
 the Ordination of a Presbyter together with the Bi- 
 fhop, and refers to the African Canon (n). 
 
 To which agrees another ancient Ritual, that de- 
 fcribes the Pra(5tice of the Roman Church (o^^ See o- 
 ther ancient Rituals in the fame learned Author, 
 which aj^ree with thefe in the Point before us, and 
 
 Ci) Apaft Cao- 2,. (k) Conft. Ap. dc Ord. Prcsb. -vj/^^a >^ xf :c-« t¥ 
 xXi^avU^T^. (;; Cona. Ap.Ibid. (m) Cone. Cartli. 4. (n; Ma- 
 rin de acns Ordin. pars lecunda. p. '112. (o) Sacramcntar. Gelaf. 
 in Morin. p« 1 1 8. 
 
 fhew 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination, 257 
 
 fhew that it was the Praftice of the Latin Church all 
 along for Presbyters to lay on Hands with the Bi- 
 ihop in Ordination > 
 
 In the Ordination of Paftbr^ or Bifhops, there was 
 hot the fartie teafOn for their laj^ing on of Hands with 
 the Bifhop; for being no Pad^rs of any Church them- 
 (dvcs, they were not proper Perfotis to be employed 
 in the ConftitutiOn of PaftorS, and therefore by the 
 Canoris, hone but Bi/hops laid Hands on Bifiiops (p), 
 that is, the Ordination of Paftors did belong to none 
 but Paftors, the Presbyters having no Paftoral 
 Charge wer^ thought unfit to convey it to others. 
 X;.,i; -r!3 ilk . 
 
 ^itf'OfJ tii 
 
 
 The Prmitive Dioccjs at fir ft hut a fingle ParijJjt^ 
 frovd^ I. hrom the Work which xvj.s fachj that 
 none hut a Par/JJj B/fljop cou^d perform, evidenced 
 h f^^^ Arguments, 2. From the whole Diocefs 
 meeting together in one Place. ^. jncieni Dio- 
 cejfes were Parochial^ hecaufe there were BiJJjops in 
 Villages and lejfer Towns y as well ai in Cities. 
 4. Ancient DtOcrJfes were Parifjes^ if we confider 
 their gtedt Number in a Province. And, 5 . that 
 they wire forrn^d in Imitation of the Synagogues. 
 6. J he Diocejfes of -Old were calPd PartJheSy 
 proved at Urge. 
 
 Prop, X. '' I ''HE Diocefs of the primitinje ^ijhop^ at firfi 
 
 ^ -i- , 'was a fingle Congregation^ or Parijh. This 
 
 will appearjfrom what h^th been faid in the former 
 
 Chapter of the Bifliop's adminiflring all Ordinances 
 
 (p) Ap. Can. I. Niccn.Conc. can. 4* ^ 
 
 S' in 
 
2 
 
 5 8 The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 in his own Perfon, which had been impofTible for 
 him to do in a Diocefs of the modern Extent. 
 
 What Bifhop now can baptize all in his Diocefs, 
 can adminifter the Lord's Supper to his whole Dio- 
 cefan Flock, and that every Lord's Day, can take care 
 of all the Poor in his Diocefs, can hear the Cate- 
 chumens, or Children fay their Catechifm, can 
 confiilt his Clergy, and his whole Flock in the Ma- 
 nagement of Church AffairSi and at the reading of 
 publick Letters ; can number his Flock, know ^11 the 
 Poor, entertain all his Clergy as his proper Family, 
 and teach them all every Lord's Day ? All this and 
 much more, as I fhall prove anon, was done by the 
 primitive Bifliop, which is a Demonftration that his 
 Diocefs was ot no larger Extent thaft our modern 
 Pariflies. This I will undertake to make good by th€ 
 following Obfervations. 
 
 1. The IVork of the Prmitrje Bifhop was Juchy as none 
 hut a Parijh Bijhop could perform. Chryfofiom faith, n 
 Biffjop mufi not take care only of the Men-, and negleSi the 
 Women — hut he mufi vifit them when they are Jicky com- 
 fort them in their Griefs, rebuke them that are remifsy and 
 relieve the JffliBed (q)- Again, He is accountable for all 
 and every Souly for all their Sins, for the Damnation of 
 every one that perifJyes any ivay through his default (r). 
 He calls them miferable Wretches that defire the Of- 
 fice ; What can one fay to thofe Wretches^ who plunge 
 themfelves into an Ahyfs of Sufferings ^ Thou mufi give 
 an account of all whom thou rulefty Womeny Meny and 
 Children (f). I am aftonifhed, faith he, at thofe who 
 feek fuch a weighty Charge ; wretchud and miferable^ 
 Many doft thou fee what thou feekeft? Canft thouan- 
 fwer for one Soul ? When thou haft got this Dignity, 
 confidcr to the Punifhment of how many Souls thou 
 art liable (t). Thefeand many other PafTages of the 
 
 (q) Chryf. de Saccrd. Lib. 6. (r) Ibid in Heb. 15. 17, (i) Id.ia 
 Hcb. Horn. 54» (t) Chryr.ia Tir, Hop?, i. 
 
 like 
 
The Hiflory oj Ordination. 259 
 
 like nature in this excellcnc Bifhop's Works, make ft 
 evident that the ancient Bifhopricks v/ :rc no ionget 
 than the Biihop could overile in his own Perfon, and 
 that he was perfohally to take care of his whole 
 FJock, Women and Children not excepted. 
 But more particularly, 
 
 1. It was the Bifhop that baftiz.ed 2\\ the Catechu-* 
 mens in his Diocefs, took theit Examination and 
 Gonfe/Iion in the Prefence of the whole Church and 
 Clergy ; as appears at large in Dionyjiu^'s Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Hierarchy {w), 
 
 2. It was the BifhOp that adminiftred the Eucharifi 
 to the whole Diocefs at one Altar, attended with all 
 the Eccleftaflkal Orders y cfpecially the Priefis and Dca* 
 cons, who ftood round about him, and afTifled 
 him (w;. 
 
 3. It was the Bifliop's proper Office to preach to th^ 
 whole Diocefs, as the Pallor of it. Aiid therefore it is 
 obferv*d by the Author oi ih^Ecclefiafikal Hierarchy, x.\\2X 
 it was proper to the Bijhop to have at his Ordination d 
 Bible laid on his Head, which the inferior Orders had 
 not (x). 
 
 We are Bi/hops for their fakes, faith Jufltn, to whoni 
 \Ve tninifter in the Word and Saeramcnts fy). The 
 fathers of the fixth Council o^ Confl amino fie at 7r«/. 
 /«w decreed, that the Bffiops who prefide in the Churches^ 
 Jh^ud every Day, efpecially on the Lord's Dayi, teach alt 
 their Clergy arid People the Words of Fiety and true 
 Religion, gathering the judgments of Truth out ef the 
 Holy Scriptures (2). 
 
 The elcFcnth Council of Toledo, enjoyns Bifiops ta 
 preach conflantly, and not to be binder d by any Worldly 
 Cares from the S^udy of the Scriptures, nor fuffer thofe com^ 
 mitted to their Care to perijh Viith the Pamine of the Word 
 of God (Z . . 
 ■ ■■' ■" ._ - --■ - ■ --'^ 
 
 (u; (w; Id. Ibid. cap. 6. (xj DcEccl,. 
 
 Hier. Cap. 9, (7) Contra Crcfcon. Lib. z. cap. x. [z] Can* 19^ 
 la} Can. 2. 
 
 S i 4. Th^ 
 
i6o The Htjlory of Ordination. 
 
 4. The Bifhops took care of all the Poor iii their 
 Dioceires. 
 
 Juflin Martyr faith, ' That the Collections of the 
 ^ Church were depofited with the Bifliop, out of 
 
 * which he relieved the Orphans and Widows, and 
 
 * thofe that are in Want by reafon of Sicknefs, or 
 
 * fome other Caufe, as alfo fuch as are in Bonds, and 
 
 * Strangers that come from far ; afid in a Word, he 
 
 * is Curator and Overfecr over all the Poor (b). 
 
 * The Author of the Apofiolkal Co'nftitutions^ charges 
 
 * the Bifhops to be careful to relieve Orphans, to ex- 
 
 * prefs a paternal Care of them, to give conjv»gaI Pro- 
 
 * tedions to Widows, to provide Husbands for fuch 
 *" as arc in the Flower of their Age; Work for Artifi' 
 
 * cers, and a Houfe^to lodge in for Strangers. 
 
 Again, ' You mufl be very careful of Orphanrs 
 
 * that they want nothing: you muft be helpful to 
 *■ Virgins until they be ripe for Marriage, and then 
 ^ you muft marry them to the Brethren : fet out 
 
 * Youths to Apprentiffeip;s, that they may learn 
 •^ Trades (c>.- ' ■ '^- V-- c */^^ 
 
 Ignatim exhorts Poly carp y not to negleB the IVidowfy 
 hut to be^ their Curator after God. He adds,^ let there be 
 frequent Affemblies, feek all by Name; defpife not the Men 
 and Maid Servants (d). 
 
 What BilTiop now is able to take Care of all the 
 Poor in his Diocefs ; to provide Trades for Or- 
 phans, Husbands for poor Virgins j to know the 
 whole Flock by their Namesy the Servants not except- 
 ed ? What Bifhop can feek his whole Dioeefs by Name^ 
 and know if any be abfent in the Weekly Aifemblies ? 
 Something of this might be done by the Paflor of 
 one of our lefler Parifhes, but it is altogether impra- 
 dicable in our larger Parilhes, much more in our Dio- 
 ceffes. It follows then that the ancient Diocejfesy in 
 which the Bijhops took care of all the Poor^ and knew 
 
 (b; Apol. 2- p, 77. Edit. S)'lburg. (c) Conft. Ap. 8. *;• (^) 
 Ignat. ad Polyc. 
 
 V * their 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. a6i 
 
 tjieir Congregations by their Names, were no bigger 
 than one of our ordinary Parifhes. 
 
 In the Biftop's Abfence th^ Care of the Poor was 
 committed to the Presbyters and Deacons. Thus 
 Cjprian in his Retirement wrote to his Presbyters 
 and Deacons, ' That they would fupply tii- Necef- 
 Mities of the Confedbrs in Prifon, and^oiLer Poor 
 ^ that perfcvered in the Faith, put of the Churcji 
 ' Stock which was in their keeping (c). 
 
 The 41 Apollol. Canon ' Commands the frenfury 
 of the Church to be depofited with the Billiop, for 
 if the precious Souls of Men be committed to his 
 Charge, much more ought he to take care of the 
 pubh'ck Money, that by his Order all Things may 
 be difpenfed to the Poor by the Hands of the Pref- 
 byters and Deacons. He may take out of it hin\- 
 felf as much as is neceflary to fuppiy his own Wants, 
 -if he be in Want, and to relieve llrange Brethren, 
 that nothing be wanting to them. 
 The Presbyters and Deacons afTifled the Bifhop in the 
 Diftribution of the Publick Charities, as the Church- 
 Wardens and Overfeers of the Poor do with us, but 
 they did all by the Determination and Authority of the 
 Bijhop^ of whofe Fidelity they were appointed Wit" 
 nejjes, as appears by the Council of Antioch ('f). 
 
 The Fifth Council of Orleans under Childebert ap- 
 points the Bifliop to relieve the Poor of his Territory 
 and City out of the Church-Houfe (j) with Food an^ 
 Cloathing (ft). 
 
 It were impofTible for a Bifliop oS one of our mo- 
 dern Diocelles, to relieve the 2(»th part of the Poor; 
 lie can neither know them, as this Canon requires him 
 to do, nor cap they come to his Houfe for Relief 
 who liv? 39 or 40 Miles diftant from him. It follows^ 
 
 (t) Ep. ^.JtO Cenc. Antioch. Cm* 44. (t) Dc Domo EcJcfise, 
 
 S i thac 
 
1^0. The Hijlory of Ordination, 
 
 that the ancient Dioceffes were very different from 
 thofe of the modern Form. 
 
 IT. The ancient Diocefes were Ijke our Parifhes, 
 becaiife ' the whole Diocefs met together in one 
 
 * Place, which a Diocefs of the prefcnt extent can- i\ 
 ^ not do. ^ 
 
 In Ignatius' s time thpre was no Church Aflembly 
 without the Bifhop. * Where the Bifhop appears, 
 ^ faith he, there let the Multitude be ; as where : 
 
 * Chrift is, there the Catholick Church is. It is not 
 
 * lawful without the Bifhop, either to bapti2e or ad- 
 ^ minifter the Lord's Supper ; for what he approves 
 
 * is pleafing to God, that every thing that is don^ 
 
 * may be firm and ftedfaft (g). 
 
 There was but one Altar or Comraunion-Table in 
 che whole Diocefs. Thus Ignatius, ' If any one be 
 
 * not within the Altar, he is deprived of the Bread 
 
 * of God : for if the Prayer of one or two have fo 
 
 * great Power, how rr:uch more the Prayer of the 
 
 * Bifliop and the whole Church (h) ? In another place, 
 
 * Run altogether as into one Temple of God, as to 
 
 * one Altar, as to ore Jefus Chrift [i), 
 
 ' Jtifiin Mr.rtyY him^ that on Sunday all that lived 
 
 * in the City and Country met together in one Place, 
 
 * and the Bifhop (is;&s<rmj preached and adminiftred 
 < the Eucharift to tb-^-m (k). 
 
 Hence Cyprian makes one B'Jhop and one Altar Rela- 
 tives ; and faith, ' That none can fet up another Al- 
 
 * tar, or a new Piieflhood, befides the one Alt^ 
 
 * and one Priefthood (\). 
 
 It is grame<i^ by the mod learned Advocates for 
 Epifcopacy, that anciently the Bifiiop's Diocefs was 
 fo fmall, that one Altar was fufficient for it. So Mr. 
 Mtrde Proof for Churches in the 2d Cent. p. 25: Dr, Ham- 
 mond, D^JJtrt. 3. cap. S- f' ^5- 
 
 {■^] Ep ad Snr.yrn. p. 6. Vofs. ]Edit. (h) Ep. ad. Eph. p. ^o. (i) 
 AdiViggnes. p. j+. (k) Appi* 2. p, 77- ('] Ep- 4Q. 
 
The Hijhry of Ordinatim. a 6^ 
 
 Dr. Stflltngfleet faith, ' That altho* when the Church- 
 ^ es increafed, the Occafjon:^! Meetings were frc- 
 ' guent in feveral Places, yet ftill there was but one 
 
 * Church and one Altar, and one Baptidry, and one 
 
 * BiiLop, with many Presbyters ailifting him: And 
 ^ this fo very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches 
 
 * planted by the Apoftles themfelvcs in feveral Parts, 
 ' that none but a great Stranger in the Hiftory of 
 ^ the Church can ever pall it in cjueftion (m). 
 
 When Dioceffcs increafed that they could not all 
 meet conftantly together, they were obliged to come 
 all tQgether when Matters of Confcquence were to 
 be determined. All the Diocefs met to manage 
 Church Affairs. Cyprian tells his Presbyters and 
 Deacons, ' That from the Beginning of his Epifco- 
 ? pacy he had determined to do nothing by his pri- 
 f vate Judgment, without their Adyiccy and Confent 
 ^ of his Peqple (n). 
 
 All the People of a Diocefs were prefent at 
 Church-Cenfures. Hence Clemens Romanus exhorts 
 the Corinthian Schifmaticks to depart, and fubmit to 
 the Determination of the Multitude (o). 
 
 Cyprian fpeaks of a Decree made by himfelf and 
 66 Bi/hops more, ' That the Lapfed ordinarily fhpu'd 
 * not be admitted to Communion without the Re- 
 *■■ queft and Knowledge of the People (p). 
 
 They all met together to chufe a pew Bifhop. Cy- 
 prian faith, ' the People chiefly hath the Power of 
 " chuling worthy Miniftcrs and rejecting the unwor- 
 ' thy fq;. 
 
 Thus Fabianus eleded Biftop of Rome by all the 
 Brethren aflembled together in the Church : and all 
 the People cried with one Confent that he was worthy. 
 
 jr&i«t ret 
 
 (m) Sermon agninfl Sep. p. 17. (n) Cypr. F.p. 6. (o) 
 
 4ptffuosif3^» L^i t3 9rAH3-j<s. Ep. ad Corinth, i". 5-4. (pj Ep. 59* 
 vid. Ep. 51. (qj Ep. 68. / 
 
 S 4 (r) Here 
 
a 6 4 2^^^' Htjl^ry oj Ordtnatim. 
 
 (x). Here all the Rema;/ Church met together in one 
 place. 
 
 Ordinations were celebrated in an Epifcopal AJfem- 
 hlyl Cvprian faith, ^ that it was of Divine Tradition 
 '* and o^ u^poftol/calOlfervatioK, and almofi: every where 
 ^ practiTcdi that for the regular performing of Ordi- 
 
 * Yuitiouy the neareil: Bifhops of the Province came to- 
 *• gether to the People that wanted a Bifhop, and the 
 \ new Biftop was chofen in the Prefence of the Peo- 
 
 * pie, who were Wi'tnelfes to his Life and Conver- 
 ^{ation (f). 
 
 This agrees with Clemens his Account of Or^s^w^//- 
 OYij ' which, faith he, was celebrated with the Confcnt 
 f of the whole Church (r). 
 
 The whole Church met at the reading of publick 
 Letters. Thus Cyprian writes to Cornelius Bifhop of 
 Rorne^ that he doubts not but ^ he always read his E- 
 ■^ piftles to his moil flourifhing Clergy that prefided 
 
 * with him, and' to the moft holy and moft numerous 
 ? People, and defires it may be done alfo for the fil- 
 ature (u). 
 
 As numerous as the Clergy and Chriflian People at 
 Rente were at this time, they were no more than 
 fcould aflemble in one place to hear Cypr/ans Letters 
 read by Cor^^^Z/z/y unto them. 
 
 The whole Roman Church was concern'd in the 
 Epiftle which the Roman Clergy wrote to the Clergy 
 at Carthage in Cyprians Retirement, \'Cr'hich ends with 
 Salutations to the Brethren of Carthage from the Con- 
 feflors, Presbyters, and the zvhok Clmych at Ro?ne (w). 
 
 All the Diocefs were obliged to communicate with 
 the Bifhop at Eafler, and other principal Feftivities. 
 Thus the fourth Council of Orleans, ' Let the chief 
 f Citizens keep the great Feflivals in the Prefence of 
 
 ^(r) Eufcb-E.-Hirt. 6. ip. ({) Ep. 68. {t) TvuU.w^*o-*,i -^ t^KXn- 
 r'liti %-fltV;;5, A J Corinth. Ep. S. 44, Edit. Paul. Coir>ra. (u^ Ep. 5-5 • 
 fw) Ep.' ^. inter C ■ pr. Epif>^ 
 
 h? 
 
The Hijlory of Ordi'mitim. 165 
 
 * the Bifhop. The Council of y^gatha requires the 
 greater Solemnities to be celebrated in the City 
 
 -or Parifh Church. 
 ' III. The ancient DiocefTes were parochial, becaufe 
 there were Diocejjes in Villages and lejj'er I'vwns as ujell 
 CIS in'Cifies. 
 
 Soz.omen obferves that in Scythia^ tho' there were 
 {everal Cities, there was but one Biihop: in other 
 Countries there were Bifhops in fome Villages, as 
 in Arabia and in Cyprus, ^s alfo among the Novatians 
 in Phrygia and among the Momamfls (\). 
 
 In Egypt there were Bifhops in feverai Villages, as 
 in Hydrax and Paldijca, two Villages belonging to 
 Ventapolis ; Olhimi, a Village in the fame Region, had 
 its Bifliop (y). 
 
 In other Parts of Africa the ancient Cuftom of fet- 
 ting up Bifliops in lefler Villages and other obfcure 
 Places was continued unto Leo's Time, who wrote 
 to the Bifhops of Mauritania Caftarienfis to forbid 
 that Pradice, as contrary to fome Canons, and the 
 Dignity of Bifhops (7). 
 
 There were feverai Bifhops in fmall Villages in P.z- 
 leftins under the Patriarch of Jerufaleniy as appears 
 by Guliel. "tyring his Catalogue. This is confefs'd by 
 Mr. Fuller^ an Epifcopal Divine, who obferves that 
 ^ Lydda, Jamnia, and Joppa, three Epifcopal Towns, 
 ' were within four Miles one of another. — He adds, 
 *■ Neither let it dagger the Reader, ii in that Catalogue 
 
 * of Tyrim he light on many Bifhop*s Seats, which 
 
 * are not to be found in Mercator, Orteliusy or any o- 
 ^ ther Geographer, for fome of them were fuch poor 
 
 * Places, that they were aiham'd to appear in a 
 
 * Map. — For in that Age Bifhops had their Sees at 
 
 * poor and contemptible Villages [h). 
 
 (x) Eccl. 7. 19. Of KtJfjbtct^ ixio-xtT^i iiftfTtth fy) Synef. Epift.dj. 
 '7) Ibid. Ep. 76. (a) Ep. Drcr. 87. cap*, z. [b) Hift. of Holy fVaK, 
 Lib, -L. C.2. 
 
 Greg. 
 
t66 The Hiflory of Ordination. 
 
 Greg, Naz,ra72z.e?Zy was made Bi/hop of Sajimusy z 
 ¥ery little Town by Bafil (c). 
 
 This Practice generally obtained until the Bi/hops 
 thought it A diminution of their Grandeur to preiidc 
 in mean Villages and Country Towns. 
 
 The Council of Sardicuy about the Year 549, for- 
 bids the creding of Bifhopricks ' in any Village or 
 
 * little City to which one Tresbyter was fufficient, be- 
 
 * caufe it is not neceflary to make a Bifhop there, left 
 
 * t;he Dignity and Authority of a Bifhop (hould grow 
 
 * contemptible : nor ought the Bifliops thj^t are in- 
 ^ vited from another Province to ordain a Bifhopj^ 
 
 * unlefs in fuch Cities as had Biihops before, or in 
 < fuch a populous City asdeferves to have a Bi/hop f. 
 
 1. This Canon, which was fubfcribed by about; 
 J 2 1 of the Weftern Bifiiops at Sardica, does not ab- 
 folutely condemn the making of Bifhqps in Villages 
 and lefler Cities, (*) but only in fuch ^s were too 
 big for the Overfight of a fingle Presbyter, as many 
 of our Pariflies arc. 
 
 2. Any Village that was too big a Charge for one 
 Presbyter might have a Bifhop. So that in the O- 
 pinion of this Council, which Socratss calls a General 
 Council^ I Places not fo big as feveral of our Parifhes, 
 were capable of having Bifhops. Many of our Pa- 
 riflies have more than one Presbyter, and few Parifh 
 Rectors but have their Curates. 
 
 3 This Canon allows the ereding of Bifiiopricks 
 in fuch populous Cities as had none before : and the 
 rcftraint is only upon foreign Bifhops that are invited 
 from another Province. A Bifhop might ered a Vil- 
 lage into a Bifhoprick in his own Diocefs. 
 
 If a Place was too great for one Presbyter, it might 
 be fuppl'kd by a Bifhop and one or more Presbyters, 
 
 [:.) Naz, Monod. in Bifil. M. Vit. -f Sardic. Concil. Can. 6. cui 
 fufficit unus Prcsbvter. * Vid, valcf, nor. in Socrat, Hift. Eccl. 2. 
 IK), i- Hift. E-s-'i. 1. 20. eit.ni^i%y. Q^yi^. 
 
 as 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination, a 6 7 
 
 as t:here was occafipn. And there were fome Bifho- 
 pricks (o little', that a Bifhop and one Presbyter were 
 thought fufficlcntto fupply them ft- 
 
 Chryfoflom judged 1 50 Pcrfons a fufficient Charge for 
 one Perfon. lis, faith he, a very laborious undertaking 
 for one Minifltr alone ^0 prefide over I 50 Men f. 
 
 So that according to the Sentiments of this Great 
 Man, who had juft ideas of the Paftoral Charge, a 
 Congregation of 200 Perfons needed a Bifhop to 
 prefide over them with one or more Presbyters. 
 
 Auflin mentions Churches both in the Cities and 
 in the Countries *, 
 
 Several Bifhops are named in the Council which 
 Cyprian call'd abput the baptizing of Hereticks, whofe 
 Seats were fo obfcure that they are not to be found 
 in any of our Geographical Tables t- 
 
 ' The Synod o£ Lao dice a about the Year 5 6S. prohi- 
 ted Bifhops to be made in Villages and Country Vlaces Cd). 
 
 Pope X^o, who flourifh'd, A. D' 450. enforced the 
 Obfervation of thefe Canons on the African Churches, 
 in tbefe Words. * As to what concerns the Dignity 
 ^ of the Prieflhood, we require above all things the 
 
 * Canonical Decrees be obferv'd, that Bifhops be not 
 
 * confecrated in every Place, or in every Caftle, or 
 ' in fuch Places as had none before: fince the Presby- 
 ^ ters Care is fufficient where there are fewer People 
 
 * and leller Aflcmblies : but the Epifcopal Powers 
 
 * ought to prefide only over the greater Affemblies, 
 ^ and more populous Cities : left the Prieftly Eminen- 
 ' cy and Honour be applied to little ViUsLgQSy and 
 
 * Country Farms,or co obfcure and uninhabited Towns, 
 
 * i^ontrary to the Divinely infpired Decrees of the 
 
 * Holy Fathers : whereby the Epifcopal Honour, to 
 
 * which the moft excellent things ought to be com- 
 
 * mitted, may grow contemptible by being over nu- 
 
 ft CrtD. Carth. Can. 19. Balfam. f Chryf. in Igiut. iriTFovv'^ 
 5cc. * Contra. Petil. 3. 31. f Sent. Epifc. 87. de H«rer. baptir.. 
 
 mcrous 
 
2 68 The Hijlory oj Ordination. 
 
 S merous. Which Reftitiitm the Bifhop complains to 
 •t' have been done in his Dioccfs, and defires that 
 * when the Bifhops of thoic Places, in which they 
 f fhould not have been ordain'd, happen to die, the 
 fAPiaces may be reftored to the Jurifdidion of that 
 ^ Bifhop wliofe they were before (e). 
 St is obferveable here, that, 
 
 1 . The Ambition of Rcftttutmy who could not en- 
 sure any Diminutipn of his Diocefs, occafion'd this 
 Decree of Pope Leoy who afriimed a Power over the 
 ^ifrican Churches, whiqh Jefus Chrift never gave him. 
 The Roman Pontifs were as forward to determine the 
 Ditferences of cgnt^iiding Bifliops in remote Provin- 
 ces, as the old Ro7nan Emperors were to arbitrate the 
 Quarrels of contending States, by whi^h fubtile Ar- 
 tihce the one and other enlarged their Empire. 
 
 2. That the reafon why Eifhpps muft not be made 
 .in A^illa^es is, nc facer dotaiis Homy fiii iiumerofitate Vif 
 lefiat, left the Epifcopal Honour /liould ^ecpme con- 
 temptible by fetting Bifiiops over the leifer Allemblies. 
 A Presbyter was thought fufficient for thefe. As if 
 ■the Honour of Epifcopacy qonlifted in the Fewnefs 
 Qf Bifiiops, in the fsumeroufnefs of their Flocks, and 
 the Greatnefs q^ the Places where they prefided. It 
 is not the number of Pallors, nor the fmallnefs of 
 their Flocks, nor the meanefs of their Seats that can 
 make them defpicable, while they confcientioufly f^cd 
 the Flock. Nor can all the Grandeur of this World 
 fecure them from Contempt, if they want Perfonal 
 Worth, and be deficient in Faftoral Duties 
 
 3. Leo's other Reafon againft multiplying of Biflio- 
 pricks is taken from the Infpired Caiions^ as he blaf- 
 phemouily calls them. 'Tis the Prerogative of the 
 facred Scriptures to be Divinely inspired f, and thefet- 
 im2, of Mens Decrees on the level with thofe hasoc- 
 caiTon'd the Corruptions of the Chriftian Church, 
 
 .tiif'j.Lcoa. 1. £p. ;jccr. by. c&p. 1. f zTira. 3. ;5. 3-«(r« yf a^jj, 
 
 arid 
 
The Hiflory of Ordination. 069 
 
 and the refolving of all Religion into the Will oS 
 Man. 
 
 We' meet with an Afyican Canon about the Yea# 
 384. againft creating of Bifhops in DiocelVes that ne«« 
 Ver had any (f). And another forbids a People thai? 
 had been fubjed to the Bifhop of the Diocefe to re^* 
 ceive another Bifhop befides him (g). ' 
 
 Thefe rcftraints eftablifl^'d the Boundaries of Bifhd- 
 pricks, which ought to have been multiplied as the 
 Believers increafed, whofe Edification fhould have 
 been more confulted than the Grandeur of Bifhops. 
 
 The Sdj(on Council of Herudjord under TbtodQrtti 
 Archbifhop of Canterbury , about the Year (573. deter- 
 mined among other things, that BjjJjopricks fhould be in- 
 creafed as the number of the Faithful encreas'd (hj. ■'Theo^ 
 dorus faith, he took this Canon out of the Book of 
 Canons made by the Fathers, which he produc'd in 
 the Council. Whether he refers to fome ancient Ca- 
 non, or to a late Decree o^iG'fegory, who allow'd ^«- 
 (lin the Monk to confecrate J 2 more Bifhops under 
 him befides the Bntijh Bifhops, I determine not (\), 
 
 Of thefe latter, Bcde makes mention of 7 who af- 
 ferted their Rights and ancient Cufloms againfty^w- 
 flin^ to whom the Pope of Rome had unjuftly fubje(5l- 
 ed them (k). It does not appear that Gregorys Di- 
 redion was obferv'd in conftituting 1 2 Engiijh Bifhops 
 under the Jurifdiction of York. The Sub/edion of 
 Scotland to the Metropolitan of Torky was not inttnd- 
 ed in P. Gregory s Epiftle, becaufe he fpeaks not of tht 
 TiBs and SiotSj but of the Church of the Engiijh j, and 
 the 13 Bifhopricks fubjected to York he would have 
 ercded in the Neighbouring Vlaces ff, when they fhould 
 embrace the Gofpel (1). :, 
 
 If this Gregorian Conftitution had been obferved. 
 
 (fj Carth. Cone. z. can. 5. (g) Canli. Con. 3. Cin. 41. Circa 
 A. D. 599. (h) Eccl- Hift. 4. 5". (ij I^id. i. 29. (k) Ibid. t. 2. 
 t Nova Angiorura Ecclefia ff. Cum tioitiius loci* (i;. Bed.- HHl 
 Eccl, 1. t9* -^^ ' 
 
'I'jo The Hijlory of Ordtnatton. 
 
 there lliould have been at leaft 33 Bifbopricks in Eng^ 
 land aiid Walesy but the Succellbrs of Auflin confulted 
 the Honour of their Order, and the Bifhops of York 
 chofe rather to extend their Power over Scotland than 
 to multiply Bifhopricks in the Northern Parts of 
 England. 
 
 The Senfe of Gregorys Cdnftitutidn may be gather- 
 ed from his Anfwer to Auflms eighth Queflion> 
 wherein he commands him not to create Bifliops at 
 fo great a Diftanee, but that they may conveniently 
 come together at the Ordination of Bifhops fm). 
 
 IV. The ancient Dioceires were originally Parochi- 
 al? ii we confider how numerous they were in a Province, 
 
 In Africa Bifhopricks lay very near one another^ 
 that vaft Allemblies ot Bifhops met together on fevC'* 
 ral occafions. A Council of 45 and another of loa 
 Donatifi Bifhops depofed Vrimianus, and fubflituted 
 Maximianus ; and a Council of 310 Bifhops of the 
 fame Fadion condemn'd the Maximiansy and not long 
 after received him into Favour again (n). 
 
 In the famous Conference at Carthagey Auflin men- 
 tions about 27P Bifhops on the part of the Donatiflsi 
 and 286 Catholick Bifhops, befides 20 more who 
 came to Carthage, but had not fubferibed their Names 
 in the publick Lill, and 120 more who could not be 
 prefent ; To which number Auflin adds fixty vacant 
 Seats, not yet filled (o). 
 
 The whole number of Bifhops and Bifhopricks on 
 the Catholick part amounts to 48^. 
 
 The firil Council of Carthage appoints three neigh- 
 bouring Bifhops to hear the Caufe of a Deacon, fix 
 Bifhops that of Presbyter, and twelve Bifhops to pafs 
 Judgment on a Bifhop t- I^ every Deacon now were 
 to be judged by three Bifiopy and every Vresbyter by. 
 — -- _ -■■ 
 
 (mj Ibid. I. 27. Refp. 8. (a) Aug. contra. Crcfcon. Lib. j.cap,- 
 13. & Lib. 4, cap, 6, (o; Opus, brevic. collar, cuo^ Donat. pr«fit. 
 t Can. 1, 
 
 fix. 
 
The Hiflory of Ordinatioru Oyi 
 
 fik, the ProfeCution would be impradicable. But in 
 the African Provinces, where Biftopricks were fmall 
 and near one another, the Bifhops might eafily deter- 
 mine all Caiifes in their Provincial Councils, which 
 were held twice a Year. 
 
 The Vresbpers anciently dwelt in one Houfe with 
 
 theBifhop tt,^ 
 
 They liv*d in common with the Bifhop, were in- 
 ftruded by him, and when there was need, were em- 
 ployed by him to inftrud the People, either in the 
 Epifcopal Church, or in fuch Oratories as depended 
 upon it |. At other times they fat under his Mini- 
 dry, and at the Adminiftration of the EuchariR ftood 
 at his right and left, as Dijctpks affifttng their Mafter^ 
 as the Author of the Conflitution (peaks * 
 
 In France, the Archbifliop of Aquitain had 120 
 Bifhops under him in ancient Times (pj. 
 
 In Ireland St. Patrick is faid to have fettled i^d'y Bi- 
 fhops (q). So that their BifliOps could be of no great 
 Extent. 
 
 Bernardy who judged of the ancient Bifhopricks by 
 thofe of his Time, complains of the fmallnefs of the 
 BritiP) Dioceffes, and fays, ' that Bijlops we-re multi-- 
 
 * plied, and changed, without Order and without 
 
 * Reafon, at the meer pleafurc of the Metropolitan, 
 
 * fo that one was not contented with one Bifiioprick, 
 
 * but almoft every (Parifh) Church had its Bifhop (r). 
 
 In Taleftine, which was fcarce as big as one third 
 of England, there were five and thirty noted Bifho- 
 pricks, whofe Names may b? feen in GuL lyrius, 
 and out of him in Alftedua his Chronology of anci- 
 ent Cities (f). 
 
 V. The ancient Diocefan Churches were Parochial, 
 
 ft PofTid. in Vit. Auguft. cap. ly. f •'Cor^ft• 
 
 Ap.8. IX. (p) Vift, Utic. de Vand. V^x(. Lib. i. (q) Hcnric dc 
 Erphord. 8c ncm. ia uflcr. Rel. Hih. cap. S. (r; In vit, Malach. 
 cap. 7.CQI. 1937. <f) Chron. Urb. cap. 29. 
 
 be- 
 
a 7 a TJoe Htfiory of Ordination: 
 
 becaufe they were formd in Imitation of the Synagogue $1 
 This is acknowJedged by the Learned Dr. Lrghtfooty 
 who obferves that the Apoflle Paul calls ' the Minffier 
 
 * Epifco^pti, or Bi/hop, from the common and knowti 
 ' Title, the Chaz,aa> or Overfeer in the Synagogues (t). 
 ' He obferves in another place out of Maimon, that 
 
 * Angel of the Churchy nnyn n^by and the (in i7rl<rK0T!r(^ 
 
 * were one and the fame j- 
 
 * The Service and Worfhip of the Temple being 
 
 * abolifhed, as being Ceremonial, God tranfplantec! 
 
 * the Worfhip arid publick Adoration of God ufed 
 
 * in the Synagogues, which was moral, into the Chri- 
 
 * ftjan Church : to wit, the publick Miniftry, publick 
 
 * Prayers, reading God's Word, and Preaching,' drc. 
 
 * Hence the Names of the Minifiers of the Gofpel 
 ' were the very fame, the Angel of the Church, "sind 
 
 * the Bijhop, which belonged to the Minifters in the 
 
 * Synagogues (u). Certainly, faith the fame learned 
 « Author, the Signification of the Word Bi/hop, an4- 
 « Angel of the Church, had been determin'd with jefs 
 ' Noife, if recourfe had been made to the proper 
 « Fountains, and Men had not vainly difputed a- 
 ^ bout the Signification of Words, taken I know rwjt 
 ^ whence f. 
 
 The learned GrotiPi^is of the fame Opinion, Mihi- 
 
 * tamen, &c. 'I take the Confiitution of the Chrifti- 
 
 * an Church to be form'dnot after the Pattern pf the 
 ^ Temple at Jerufalem, but of the Synagogues. For 
 
 * it is certain that in every Synagogue there was one 
 
 * whom the Jews called bnpn u;n the head of the Sy- 
 
 * nagogue, and the Hellenifts usx^v i^i <rvmya»y^i, vel ';^~ 
 
 * Xi(rvvc(,y»yl^» the Rulct of the Synagogue (\v). /**7 
 
 After the Deflrudion of the Temple, the Syna- 
 gogues were govern'd by Chief Rulers, Friejisy Elders 
 and Deacons. Thefe were fubjed to. iomc general 
 
 (t) Vol. I. p. 30S. t Ibid; p. 61 2,'. (u) Vol. 4. p. X3f«: %}^l^' 
 (w) Dc Imp. II. 8. 
 
 ' ' ^ Officers, 
 
The Hijlory of Ordination. 7y^ 
 
 Officers, whom they call'd j4poftlesy whofe Work was 
 to gather the T'tthes and Frrji Fruits among the Pro- 
 vincial Jewsy and to regulate the Dijcipline of the Sy- 
 nagogue. Thefe Jpofiles were fiibjedt to a Patriarchy 
 who was the chief Maglftrate amongft them, and 
 derived his Office by Inheritance (x). EpiphaniPiA 
 mentions one Ellel, a. Patriarch of the Jevcs, dcfcend- 
 ed from Gamaliel ^ who had been a Patriarch alfo, 
 and was of the Family of that Gamaliel, who dilllia- 
 ded the Jews from perfecuting the Apoftles (y). 
 
 Here is a manifeft Agreement between the Synagogue 
 and the ChriJUan Church. In every Synagogue there 
 was one Chief Ruler, and other inferior Minifters, 
 viz. Pricftsy Vreshyters (or Elden;) and Deacons. There 
 is no room for Friefls in the Chriftian Church, for 
 the Legal Priefthood which was appropiated to the 
 Temple is ceafed. 
 
 The Chriflian Church w^s (o far modei'd according 
 to the Synagogue, that every Congregation fhou'd have 
 a Chief Ruler, or Bifhop, one or more Presbyters and 
 Deacons. Not that the Bijhop was of a difhncl Or- 
 der from the Presbytersy but that he had the Paftoral 
 Charge of the Congregation, in which he was affift- 
 ed by the Presbyters and Deacons, as our Pariflii^tHorj 
 with their Curates and Church Wardens. 
 
 Epiphanim calls the Deacons Jz^anita, from the He- 
 brew DM|n which fignified not only the Bifiop of the 
 Synagogue, as Dr. Ughtfoot hath obferved, but the 
 inferior Minifters, or Deacons, unto wiiom it belong'd 
 to fcourge Perfons in the Synagogue. The Officer 
 that inflided the Penalty of Whipping is call'd ^in 
 LitloYy or publick Miniflcr. 
 
 Thus the T^almudip ^^pVo-^vO How n Whipping per- 
 formed ? They tie both his Hands to a Pillar. Then 
 the Chaz.en, or Minifter takes hold of his Garment, 
 and whether by loofing or tearing it makes bare his 
 
 (x) Epiph ad'/. Hxref. 30. 7— - n- Oj Ibid. Stft. 4. 
 
 T Breaft 
 
a 7 4- T^^ Hifiory of Ordination. 
 
 Brcaft- A Stone is placed by him, on which the 
 Chaz^an ^n ftands, holding a Ccrd of twifted Thongs 
 in his Hand, dXc (z). 
 
 See feveral Examples of this Signification of ^in in 
 C. Vitringa. The fame Officer was called alfo "^^^^ n^'^v 
 the Meflenger or Angel of the Congregation (b). 
 
 The Ebionitesy who under the Chriftian Name Ju- 
 daiz*d in many Things, call'd their Congregation ^y- 
 nagogue and not a Churchy and fliled their Teachers 
 rresbpers and RtileYi of the Synagogue (c). 
 
 Jujiinian calls the Rulers of the JewijJj Synagogues 
 Archipherekitay and diftinguifhes them from the Jewifi 
 Presbyters. They prefided in the Synagogues, and 
 direLS:ed the LeBions of the Hebreiv Bible, which the 
 Jews ca.Wc^'p'^^SeSimis sindthc HelknJjis xt^^oz^f* Thefe 
 Archipherekita had their Superiors, who were called 
 Trimates, It appears by the Imperial Conflitutions, 
 that there- was a Frimate in each of the Taleflinesy and 
 fo there was in other Provinces (d^- 
 
 Vhilo obferVes, that in the Jev)ifi Synagogue one 
 did read in the Book of the Law, and another who 
 was one of the moft skilful in the Law, explain'd the 
 more obfcure Things (e). 
 
 He mentions the T^ii^^or, or Prefident in the Affem- 
 blies of the T'herapema, who preached unto them, by 
 explaining the Allegories of the Law, and fung a 
 Hymn, either out of the Writings of the Prophets, or 
 of his own Compofure (g). 
 
 There were Synagogues in moft Cities. P0jat are 
 the Oratories, dizh Philo, built in every City, hut Schools 
 of Vertue and IVifdom (g) > 
 
 This Paflage may help us to underftand St. TauVs 
 
 (z) Cod. Maccoth. Cap, 5. Se£t« i». (a) Obfeiv. fac, p. ^-o, 
 f6, (b) Ibid. p. 59, Co. {c)n^t(rliori^Vi y* hrciltx^o-i ^ '^;c^tvvX' 
 V*v8? Epiph. ubi Sup. Sc<a. 18. (d) L.Uit. Cod. Theod. de ]ud, 
 <€; Qjod omnis prob. liber, p. 877. Edit. Frankt. 1691. (f) Dc 
 Vit, Contempl p. 901. (g) — xtcrti xUai ^vOriVKT^^tx. - DeVit. 
 Mofis p. 68j. 
 
xnrtt 
 
 The Hijlory oj Ordination. aye 
 
 To'Air, when he exhorts ?/>/;i to ordain Elders x*r«(r«';i», 
 in every City (f). x«t« toAi» here is the fame with 
 uttT fUxXnTictt in every Churchy Acts 14. 23. but it does 
 not follow thence, that Churches and Cities were of 
 the fame Extent. 
 
 At firft the Chriftian Church was but a fmall Part 
 of the City. When the Chriftians grew too nume- 
 rous for a iingle Congregation, it became necefl'ary 
 to multiply Churches, and their Paftors ; as the Jews 
 did their Synagcguesy which in fome Cities were very 
 numerous. There were about 480 in Jerujalemy as 
 fome Je-wijh Dodors affirm (h). 
 
 Thilo faith there were many Synagogues in every 
 Ward of Alexandria (i). Each of thefe Synagogues 
 had their diftind and proper Ruler or Bifhop, and 
 fo had every Chriftian Church in fuch Cities as had 
 need of them. Hence we read of more than one Bi- 
 fiiop in a City, as at Philippic there were Bilhops 
 and Deacons (]). 
 
 6. The ancient Diocejfes were Parochial, becaufc 
 they are often called Tarijhes, 
 
 The Compiler of the Apoftolical Canons faith, a bad 
 Bifhop blemifheth the Church in his Parifh fk). 
 
 In another Place he calls Aqtii la 2ind Nicetfn Bifhops 
 of the Parifhes ©f AJta (*), then adds to this Purpofe, 
 T^he Brfiops mufi do nothing without the Confent of their 
 Primate^ except in their own Panfi, and the Villages 
 which depend upon ity and the Primate mufJ do nothing in 
 their Parijhes without their common Confent- 
 
 The Couiieil of Ancjra calls a Diocefs a Parijh two 
 feveral Times, Can. 13. 'The City Presbyters muU dono^ 
 thing in any Parijh (or Diocefs) without the Bijhofs Let- 
 ter, Can. 25. The Brjhops and their Miniflers muR en- 
 
 (f) Tit. I. f, (h) Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 35. (i) Lcgat. ad Oj. p. 
 loll, 1012. •-... jf,tc,y iKUfov !(JiKfJUcc T?4 »"«A»ft/«. (i) i hil. I. i. (k) 
 xfltra Tj|» "nu^txietf uuii' Conft. Ap. 2, lo. {*) ...- r»> xefcT* *A- 
 r»«» TTMoiKiif* Ibid. 7, 46. 
 
 P 2 deaVQur 
 
176 The Htflory of Ordination. 
 
 deavour to root out of thetr Parijbes Witchcraft and For- 
 tune-tellingy ivhich was invented by the Devil, 8cc. 
 
 The Council of Jntioch ufes the Word Panjh in the 
 fame Senfe, Can. p. Let every B/fljop have Power in his 
 own Panfh. Can. 21. Let not a BiJJjof remove from one 
 Parijh to another* 
 
 Eufehim calls the Bijhoprkks of Jfta, the Varifhes 
 of Afia (1). 
 
 The Church of Alexandria, when Anmanm was 
 made BiiLop of it, is called the TartPj of Alexandria (m>. 
 
 So Jmm fpeaks in hisEpiftle againflt John of Je- 
 rufalem. Prove, [akh he, that we have a Bfftjop in your 
 Parifb(n). 
 
 Aufiin mentions one .Reflituttis a Presbyter in the 
 TarifJ) of the Church of Calama (f). 
 
 The primitive D^ocf^y^/ were properly call'd 'Tm^tKio^- 
 Parifhes, becaufe they confided of Perfons living near 
 one another. 
 
 Ux^oikU is accolatus, vicina habitation dwelling in the 
 fame Neighbourhood, as Emilius Tortus renders it in 
 Suidas ; or it is the fame with •mt^synhfji^U, a. Pilgrimage 
 our Life here being a State of Pilgrimage, as Suidas 
 himfelf explains it * 
 
 And in both thefe refpeds Clemens in his excellent 
 Epifile to the Church of Corinth, ufes the Word 
 '7rusoi>cS<n,. Thus hc bcgins, The Church of God, (4 'mt^oi- 
 KS<m) which par/fieth or fojcurns at Rome, to the Church 
 cf God {-nu^oiKm) parifliing or fojourning at Corinth. 
 Polycayp begins in the fame manner, To the Church of 
 God [r'ii -mt^^oi^ifT'^) parijhing at Philippi. So that the Bi- 
 fhop's Diocefs in ancient Times, were the Chriftians 
 dwelh'ng in the fame Neighbourhood, and affembling 
 together at one Altar. They were properly Partfb 
 Btjhops, and fome of our modern Pariflies are larger and 
 
 1 (\) rr,^ «Va5. rx<i Tm^oiyJui, Eccl. Hi^. 5. z^, (m) Eufcb. ib. i t- 
 14- (n) In parochia tu3. Ep. ad Pamach. (fl De. C D. 14.14. 
 ♦ Vid. :>uid. in rn^xU. 
 
 ^ *- - contain 
 
Tloe Hijlory of Ordination. ijj 
 
 contain greater Numbers of Souls than the ancient 
 DiocefTesdid. 
 
 Sometimes -mtptuKU CigniRes part of a Dioccfs. In 
 this Senfe Tertu/iian mentions Porttonales Paracia \ in- 
 timating that the Bifhop*s Diocefs was the whole Pa- 
 rifl)^ which, as we obferved above, often met in one 
 Place ; the lefler Divifions of the Varifiy which he 
 calls Portional PariJheSy or Parts of a Parifiy might have 
 occafional fubordinate Aflemblies, as there are ftill in 
 our larger Parijhes. Such occafional partial Affem- 
 blies of the Bifiop's Parochial Church became neceflary 
 in thofe Times o£ Perfecutioriy when the whole Church 
 could not publickly afl'emblc. 
 
 Petavius confefl'es, that in the firft Ages of the 
 Church, one Church or Oratory within the Walls of 
 a City was fufficient for Religious Aflemblies (o.) 
 
 Tope Innocent calls the Country Churches Parijhesy 
 and the City Churches T'itles (p). 
 
 As Diocejfes grew larger, and the Power of Bifliops 
 increafed, Parochia or Parijh was thought of to nar- 
 row a Signification, and A«orW<?, a Diocejsy was fub- 
 ftituted in the room of it. 
 
 Hence the Bifhop's Charge was called a Diocefs, 
 Adminifirationy Government or Province f ; in Imitation 
 of the Roman Empire, which was divided into fo 
 many Diucejfes, each Diocefs confifting of fo many 
 Provinces, were fubjefi: to certain Officers, who de- 
 pended on the PrafeHus Pratorio. 
 
 Cicero often mentions the Roman Dioceffes. He fays, 
 there were three Afiatick Dioceffes under him (q). He 
 mentions the Diocefs of Hellefpont (r), and his own 
 Diocefs (s). 
 
 Conflantine, in his Letter to Eufehius, fays he had 
 written to the Governour of the Diocefs, to furnifh 
 
 (o) De |Eccl. Hier. 2. i ^. (pj Ep. ad D. cap. 5. f A SiotK^t, 
 admioiftrare, regcre. (q) Ep. Lib. 15. Ep. 67. P. Scroll, {t) Ibid. 
 ^?'S^' (*) Ep» Lib. 5. ad Attic, i/. 
 
 him 
 
a 78 Thii Hiflory of Ordinatimti 
 
 him with the neceflary Charges for providing 50 fair 
 Bibles to be fent to Conflantimple {t). The Word 
 Diocefs here fignifies, in the civil Senfe, the PrefeBure 
 of the Eaf^. 
 
 As Bifhopricks grew more extenfive, and emulated 
 the Civil Power^they were called Diocejfes in Confor- 
 mity to the Empire, and the Subdivifions of the Dio- 
 cefs were called Parijhesy as they are to this Day. 
 
 confefTes that Parochia is often put for a Diocefs. 
 So the Word is taken in a Conftitution of Richard 
 Archbifhop of Canterluryy which forbids the Ordaining 
 of the Farijhoner (Parochianumj of another Eijhop luithout 
 his Licenfe (u). 
 
 The inlarging of Dioceffes beyond their original 
 Boundaries has proved deflrudive to the ancient 
 ftrid Difcipline. As the Believers increafed, the £- 
 fifcofal Parijhes or Dioceffes fhould have been multipli- 
 ed, and not fuffered to fwell to fuch an extenfive 
 Bulk, as no one Man could perfonally overfee. 
 
 At firft they multiplied Bijhops as the People increa- 
 fed, as has been proved above. Aufiin mentions Lu- 
 cillus 2l Bifhop in the Caftle Synica near to Hippo (w). 
 He fignifies his Defire to have a Bifhop created in the 
 Caftle Fuffaluy which was in the Diocefs of Hippo^ or 
 as he expreffes it, which belonged to the Parifh of the 
 Church of Hippo (x). 
 
 In fine, fince the primitive Bifhops adminiftred to 
 to their Flock all Ordinances, and took care of the 
 Poor therein -, fince the whole Diocefan Church met 
 in one Place, and Dioceffes were ereded in Villages as 
 well as Cities ,• fince they lay fo near together, were 
 erefted in Imitation of the jewifh Synagogues, and are 
 called Parijhes by the Ancients, it follows that they 
 
 (t) Vit. Cpnftant. 4. 36. x^U ro> r?5 ^.oty.n(rsaii xcf,B-o}nx,it . (a) 
 
 Provinc. Lib. 1. De Temp. Ord. c Quia quidam. (w) Dc C. D. 
 ax. 8. (X) Ep. 161. 
 
 * were 
 
The Hifiory of Ordination. aj^ 
 
 were Parochial, and not of the Extent of our modern 
 Dipcefles. 
 
 C H 
 
 A P 
 
 The remaining Heads of the Hiftory^ with which 
 Mr, Owen intended to have fntjhed the Work. 
 
 Conclufion, 
 
 # 
 
 Prop.XI. A S the Bijhops grew ambitious of Honour and 
 -^^ FoweTy they were Jo jar from multiplying 
 Bijhof ricks according to the Exigencies of the Church, that 
 they rather extended their Empire a6 far as they could* 
 
 Naz,ianz^n complains, that many of the Bifhops 
 and Clergy of his Age, * were no better but rather 
 
 * worfe than other Men, that with impure Hand and 
 
 * profane Minds they thruft themfelves into the moft 
 
 * facred Things ; and before they were fit to ap- 
 
 * proach holy Things, poflefs^d the (chief) Seat, and 
 
 * throng'd about the holy Table, as if they look'd 
 
 * upon this Order to be a Matter of Vrofit, and not 
 
 * the Pattern of Virtue, and fancied it to be not a 
 ^ Minifiry, but a fort of abfolutc Dominion. And 
 
 * thefe, faith he, are almoll more numerous than fucb 
 
 * 2iS fuhjeSi to them (y). 
 
 In another Place, ' The moft facred Order amongft 
 ^ us is in danger of becoming ridiculous. Prelacy a- 
 
 * rifes not from IVorth but Fice, and the 'Thrones are 
 
 * given not to the moft worthy but to the moft potent 
 
 * (2). * * * Cat era defiderantur. 
 
 XII. The Bifhops referv'd to themfelves the more 
 honourable Parts of the Miniftry (as Ordination of 
 Minifters, Confecration of Churches, Confirmation, 
 
 <} ) «T«Aoy. p. I J. (z) Orat. in Laud. Bafil. M. 
 
 vailing 
 
a8o The Hijlory of Ordination. 
 
 vailing of Virgins, Excommunication) and left the 
 more toilfom and troublefom to the Presbyters^ as the 
 Tower of Preaching and Admtmflring the Sacraments. 
 
 XIII. The City Bifliops fwallow'd up the Power 
 of the Country Bi/hops, and deprived em of their 
 pafloral Authority, and inftead of Governing-Paftors 
 in the Country Parifhes, ordained only Curates, with- 
 out Power of Difcipline. 
 
 XIV. Parijh Miniflers are the proper Succeflbrs of 
 the ancient Country Bijhops. They are the Paftors of 
 the Fiock, to be chofen and approved by the Parijhes. 
 
 XV. The City Bijhops had no Power to deprive 
 thofe Parijh Brjhops of the Powers which were inhe- 
 rent in em ; this Deprivation is a Degree of fpiri- 
 tual Tyranny. 
 
 XVI. The Courts of Judicatory, in which the Bi- 
 fhops or their Deputies prefided, were improper and 
 ineffedual Means to preferve the ancient Difcipline. 
 This is evident from their want of Knowledge of the 
 Cafe, the falfe Rules they went by, as Canons, De- 
 cretals, &c. improper Judges as Laymen, whereas the 
 Power of the Keys was committed to Minijiers. The 
 Penalty which by the Gofpel was Spiritual, as Ex- 
 communication, 2 Cor. lo. 4, 5. but in the Epifco- 
 pal Court, fecular by Commutation and pecuniary 
 Mulds turn'd againft Godlinefs, under the Notion of 
 Herefy and Schifm ; thus the IValdenfes, the Lollards, 
 and fome of the beft Chriftians, were excommunica- 
 ]ted and deflroyed. 
 
 XVII. The Ordinations of Minifters greatly cor- 
 rupted. 
 
 1. As appropriated to City Bijhops. 
 
 2. Performed without due Examination of the Can- 
 didates. 
 
 3. Without Election of the People, and at a Di- 
 ftance from 'em. 
 
 4. Clogged with unreafonable Terms of Commu- 
 nion, as the Oath of Canonical Obedience, and to 
 root out Hereticks. 
 
 5. The 
 
The Hijlory oj Ordination. 075 
 
 r. The Miniflry changed into a Vriefihood, 
 
 6. Licenfcs to empower them to preach. 
 
 7. Mcer Readers ordained. 
 
 XVIII. The fubjeaing all Bijbg^s and Churches to 
 the Pope of Rome^ fpread the Romijh Corruptions 
 thro' all the IVeftern Churches- 
 
 XIX. Thefe Corrifptions occafioned the Separa- 
 tion oF the beft Chriftians from the Church of Rome, 
 as IVcildenfes 
 
 XX. Thefe VVicneffes againft Antichrift reaffum'd 
 the Original Power of ?arijh Bijhops, and ordained 
 their own Minifiers. 
 
 XXI. Likcwife in the beginning of the Reformat 
 ticHy our Reformers reftored the Ordaining Power of 
 the Country Bijhops or Parijb Minifters * * * * 
 
 To conclude, I am fenfible that a great many of 
 our Adverfaries are fo far prejudiced, as not to be 
 convinced by Reafon itfelf, fpeaking in behalf of any 
 that differ from em, and therefore doubt not but 
 this Treatife will be attacked by fome one or other, 
 as Intereft, Honour, or Party-Zeal may dired. 
 
 So that I think it neceflary to inform the Antago- 
 nifls of fome Things that will be expeded of them 
 to deferve the Name of an Anfwer, vi^. 
 
 i. That they anfwer all the Arguments without 
 making the Excufe of their being not worth it, or 
 anfwered already ; otherwife we fhall take for grant- 
 ed, whatever is omitted. 
 
 2. That they attack the Bulk of the Arguments, 
 and don't play only on the Outworks. 
 
 3. That they palm not upon us the fcurrilous 
 Banter of the Party, inftead of Reafon and fair Ar- 
 guing. 
 
 4. That they don't charge upon the Editor the 
 Miftakes of the Prefs and Amanuenfisy as ufually pract:- 
 hi^ for want of better Argument. 
 
 ¥ I U I s. 
 
Si. M. &■ ^ Si- ^^ Ml . Si- ^ S^ M & & ^, 
 
 W 'x^ '*■ 'i? -^>? * ^ • ^ # -^ '# -4- W * 
 
 ^ /^or^ Account of the Additmtds to 
 the WORK. 
 
 I. T N abridging the Vleuy I afTum'd rhe Liberty 
 
 J- not only to pretermit large Quotations, and 
 other Matters that to me fcem'd fnpervacaneous, 
 but thro' the whole, to add feveral Things that are 
 corroborative of the Argument, and fubveriive of the 
 Advcrfaries Objedions. 
 
 More efpecially, the Cafe of Timothy and T'itusy 
 and the pretended Prefidency in their Ordination, 
 is, further iliuftrated and confuted. From the A- 
 poftolick Cemmiflion I prove the Right of Pref- 
 byters to ordain, and then (hew how the Supe- 
 riority of Englijh Bijhops above Presbyters is founded 
 upon the Laws of England. 
 
 Ordination by Presbyters, and the deftrufiiion of 
 Prelacy in the foreign Reformed Churches (as in 
 Swedland and Denmark) is particularly confidered 
 out of Abbot Vertot and prefent State of Denmark : 
 The Church o^ England's Approbation of Ordination 
 by Presbyters made out more fully : The Prefatory 
 Argument before the Book of Ordination explained, 
 and fhew'd not to be inconfiftent therewith. The 
 Reformation of the Scots Church by Presbyters fur- 
 ther vindicated. 
 
 IL As to the Defence^ I had reduced it to a nar- 
 rower Compafs, but for the Animadversions I make 
 all along on the ReEior of Burys Anfwer to it and 
 the Vlea ; however have endeavour 'd to make 'em as 
 brief, and concife as poflible. I account for the pre- 
 tended Inftances of Ordination without Presbyters, 
 prove "Timothy and Titus to be no Diocefans but Evan- 
 gelijlsy the Original of which Order I confider, and 
 
 * /hew 
 
Additionals to this WORK. 
 
 {hew at large how Presbytery was divinely and unalte- 
 rably fettled in the Ephejian Church. 
 
 III. The Third Part, which gives the Preference 
 to Presbyterial Ordination, is from an Original im- 
 perfed Manufcript of Mr. Owens ; defign'd in Twelve 
 Arguments ; finifh'd by the Publifher. 
 
 IV. The Ht/lory of Ordination was Mr. Owens laft- 
 Work, but it was the Will of our Almighty Sovereign- 
 that he fhould finifh his Courfe before he had finifh'd 
 that ufeful Dellgn ; it was to be deliver'd in Twenty 
 one PropofitijOQS, Ten of which are only perfected : 
 No Materials being left for the remaining Heads, 
 I only mention em, which may ferve to give an 
 Idea of the whole. 
 
 Had he liv'd to have given the finifhing Stroke 
 to thefe Works, they had fufficiently recommended 
 themfelves, having, I think, few Equals in the Con- 
 troverfy. 
 
 I have prefix'd Contents to each Chapter thro' 
 the whole Performance, and done every thing elfe 
 that I thought neceilary, to prove the Validity of our 
 Dijfenting Minijiry. 
 
 Ch A. Owen. 
 
 BOOfiS 
 
BOOK.S Pr Med for, a^d Sold ^7 Em an. Mat- 
 thews at the Bible in Pater-nofter-row. 
 
 PLain-Dealing ; or Separation without Schifm, 
 and Schifm without Separation, &c. By the 
 Reverend Mr. Cha. Owen. The Fifth Edition. 
 Price 6 d. 
 
 1. Self Confidcration neceflary to Self Prefer- 
 vation ; or, the Folly of defpidng our own Souls 
 and own Ways ; opened in Two Sermons to 
 Young People, 
 
 2. The Pleafantnefs of a Religious Lifeopen'd 
 and provM, and recommended to the Confide- 
 rationofall, particularly of young People. The 
 Second Edition* 
 
 J. Sobermindednefs prefs'd upon Young People, 
 In a Difconrfe on Trr/i/ 2. 6. The Second Edition. 
 
 Thefe Three above, by the late Reverend Mr. 
 Mdttheiv Henry. 
 
 A Funeral Sermon on occafion of the much 
 Lamented Death of the Reverend Mr. Matthew 
 Henry. By the Reverend Mr. IV. Tong. The 
 Fourth Edition. 
 
 An Account of the Life and Death of the late 
 Reverend Mr. Matthew Henry^ Minifter of the 
 Gofpel at Hackney, who died June 22d. 171 4. 
 in the 5 2d Year of his Age. By the Reve- 
 rend Mr. W. Tong. In 8vo and 12s. 
 
 A Guide to Prayer. By the Revd. Mr. 7. Watts. 
 
 Chrift every Chriftian's Pattern, By the Reve- 
 rend Mr. Robert Murrey. 
 
 A Treatife of being born again. By the Re- 
 verend Mr. S. Wright. 
 
 The Family Inllru£lor: In Three Parts, by 
 Way of Dialogue. The Second Edition. 
 
\ 
 
n