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 }
*â– 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,
*â– 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.
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
â– 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
â– _ 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.