into a Prelatical Bijhop^ from whom the Pope fprung.
It is well for the Presbyterians that the Pope is a.
Among the Jeivs any one that was ordain'd
â€¢'*â€¢ 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
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-
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.
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
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.
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-
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
â– 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-
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. â€”
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.
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.
â€¢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. â€” 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^Â£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. â€”
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,
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
Jujltii Martyn, who flourifli'd about the Year 140
mentions two Orders only the â‚¬jâ‚¬3UrtÂ»% 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.} â€” 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
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. â€”
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
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
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-â€” 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
Â« 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. â€” Ccn-
cludendi â€” da hue qu^ Ftdei Orthcdoxa fulcmentum â€” .
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-
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
"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^
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,
â€” ^ 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.
6b An Ahridoment .of
â– * '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.
â– â€” The late BiHiop oÂ£ PForcefier in his Irenicum, tells
US of a Manufcript fetting forth the Judgment of
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
' ^1-This Manufcript contains the Debates in order
to Reformation, which belongs to Edward Vi'sTime.
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.
'^â– /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.
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
6i An Abridgment of
Head with what the Bifhop of Salisbury faith in his
Vindication of the Church of Scotlandy in thefc
I acknowledge Sifiop and Presbyter to be one and the fdme
Saravia and Laud were fome of the firft who
broach'd this Notion of the ^us Divinum^ of Dioce-
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
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
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
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.
<$4- . ^^^ Ahridgnknt oj
Dr. Lawrence Humfrey^ a Non-ftibfcriber to the im-
pofed Terms of Communion, was remarkably inti-