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
\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