,3«»!^'
:y«« .i; V •••«¥« tfl
'"'4.
.â– 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
â– ^^^^
- 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
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,
â– 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-^-' â–
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
" 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
" 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-